DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Claims 47-63 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
-Figure 5 appears to list benefits associated with the use of the microchip packages but this recited within the specification and should not be repeated in a drawing.
-The list of transmission options outlined in Figure 10 is outlined in the specification (Page 27) and should not be repeated within the drawings.
-Figure 12 comprises a list of components that is unnecessary.
-Figures 12-18, 23, 24, 31 comprises labels including both words and reference numbers. Reference numbers are preferred. See 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(1).
-Figures 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53 includes unnecessary list of details. The Figures should include drawings of structures with associated reference characters to be referenced within the specification.
-Figures 45, 51 includes photographs that are not permitted in drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b).
-Figure 55 includes coloring not permitted per 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2).
-Figures 13, 15, 17, 18, 21-31, 33-42, 53-54 comprise different views of the same or different structures and should be separated into different Figures with different numbering per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
-Several Figures include shading that do not aid in understanding the invention per 37 CFR 1.84 (m). Figures should be reviewed and unnecessary shading should be removed.
-In general, several Figures include:
(1) unnecessary wording/lists of which are recited within the specification
(2) photographs or shading not permitted
(3) different views of the same or different structures and should be separated into different Figures with different numbering.
-These Figures should be reviewed and amended as necessary.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Objections
Claims 47 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 47, line 4, “the machine data representing” would be better recited as “the machine, data representing”.
--Claim 55, line 1, “changing operation” should instead recite “the changing operation”.
-Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 47-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 47, lines 3-5 recite “sensing a parameter on a tool and a presence or absence of a removable attachment on the tool” and subsequently recites “transmitting to the machine data…representing an indication of the presence or absence of the removable attachment on the tool”. These limitations do not comprise sufficient support within the original disclosure and therefore constitute new matter.
Specifically, there is not sufficient support for “sensing” “a presence or absence of a removable attachment on the tool” and transmitting data “representing an indication of the presence or absence”.
Page 42, line 33 through Page 43, line 3 does recite “Microchip packages on removable segments can be used to communicate with other microchips, for example on the core, as desired, for example to check compatibility, proper configuration of the assembly, optimal operating parameters, presence or absence of the removable sections in their respective locked positions (3002A), etc.” which appears to provide support for microchip packages on removable sections which communicate with other microchips to check presence or absence of the removable sections in their respective locked positions, however, this is not sufficient support for a method step of “sensing” “a presence or absence of a removable attachment on the tool” and “transmitting” such data pertaining to the presence or absence to the machine.
Further there is not support for a method including both sensing of a parameter and a presence or absence of a removable attachment.
Even further, the term “removable attachment” is not recited within the specification and therefore it is not readily clear what such “removable attachment” is referring to and there is not sufficient support to readily distinguish what such a feature is referring to. In conclusion, there is not sufficient support for the limitations as claimed within the original disclosure.
Claims 48-63 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as the claims comprise the limitations of Claim 47 which lack sufficient support in the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 47-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 47, it is unclear as to what is being encompassed by “sensing a parameter on a tool and a presence or absence of a removable attachment on the tool” and what is the data “representing an indication of the presence or absence of the removable attachment” in view of the lack of support within the original disclosure (see 112(a) rejection above). Specifically, it is unclear as to what the “removable attachment” is referring to and intended to encompass in light of the specification. It appears to be referring to the “removable sections” outlined in the 112(a) rejection above but this is not readily clear. Therefore, these claim limitations render the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 48, lines 2-3 recite “the tool powered with a power source on the tool” and subsequently lines 3-4 recite “powering the processor on the tool with power from a battery on the tool”. These limitations render the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether the claimed “power source” and “battery” are referring to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 51, line 2 recites “sensing a parameter”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is referring to the same parameter that is defined in Claim 47 or a further parameter.
Regarding Claim 52, line 2 recites “the processor” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 54, lines 2-3 recite “changing operation of the machine based on data from the tool”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Regarding Claim 56, line 2 recites “transmitting data”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Further regarding Claim 56, lines 4-5 recite “for a second machine”, however, it is unclear if this is meant to recite “or a second machine” or if it is meant to recite “for a second machine” and if so, what is “for a second machine”. Therefore, the claim is rendered further indefinite.
Regarding Claim 57, line 2 recites “locking out a machine based on data”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Regarding Claim 58, lines 1-2 recite “locking out a machine based on data”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claims 47, 57 or different data.
Regarding Claim 59, lines 2-3 recite “changing a speed…as a function of data received”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Regarding Claim 60, line 4 recites “data from one or more of an accelerometer”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Regarding Claim 62, line 2 recites “analyzing data”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Regarding Claim 63, lines 3-4 recites “data from one or more of an accelerometer”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the “data” is referring to the “data” defined in Claim 47 or different data.
Claims 49, 50, 53, 55, and 61 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as the claims depend from at least one of the claims outlined above and therefore also comprise the indefinite limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 47, 51, 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 47, Zieler discloses a method for controlling a machine (circular saw 28; Figure 6) based on a parameter (from 24) sensed from a tool (20; Figures 3B-3E) attached to the machine (28), the method including:
sensing a parameter (i.e. “accessory size, diameter, number of cutters, optimum speed, ideal feed rate, material to be cut by the accessory,” from communication member 24) on a tool (20; Col 5, lines 14-24 and Col 6, lines 25-35) and a presence or absence of a removable attachment (communication member 24 is embodied as a “label circuit” or “RFID tag” (per Col 5, lines 16-20 and lines 28-31) which are readily removable at a certain removal force) on the tool (20), transmitting to the machine (28), data (“information”; Col 5, lines 20-24) representing the parameter (“accessory size, diameter, number of cutters, optimum speed, ideal feed rate, material to be cut by the accessory,”) sensed on the tool (20) and representing an indication of the presence or absence of the removable attachment (24) on the tool (20; Col 5, lines 14-31 and Col 6, lines 25-35; note that any feedback or signal generated from the communication member 24 is indicative of presence of the communication member 24).
Regarding Claim 51, Zieler discloses sensing a parameter including one or more of temperature, position, motion, moisture, structural stress, transmitted signal, and electrical resistance (see Col 5, lines 20-27 which outline sensing size (hence positioning), speed (viewed a motion), and temperature).
Regarding Claim 54, Zieler discloses including changing operation of the machine (28) based on data from the tool (20; Col 6, lines 25-35).
Regarding Claim 55, Zieler discloses changing operation of the machine (28) includes one or more of changing tool speed, tool depth, feed rate, machine position, and coolant (20; Col 5, lines 20-24 disclose speed and rate being communicated and Col 6, lines 25-35 disclose adjusting operation of machine).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 47, 51, 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS).
Alternatively regarding Claims 47, 51, 54 and 55, assuming the disclosed embodiments of tool attachments (communication members 24) of Zieler cannot be readily viewed as “removable”, in which the Examiner does not readily concede to. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to embody the tool attachments/communication members (24) to be attached in a removable manner, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. It is also noted that making such attachments removable allows for replacement if the attachment is damaged or malfunctioning. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS), in view of Craig (US PGPUB 2009/0175694-cited in IDS) and in further view of Neubardt (US PGPUB 2008/0262526-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 48, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose transmitting the data to the machine includes processing the data with a processor on the tool powered with a power source on the tool and further including powering the processor on the tool with power from a battery on the tool.
Attention is first brought to the teachings of Craig which includes a tool (10; Figure 10) that comprises a RFID chip (20) which readily include a processor (note in order to store information and process data wirelessly, processors are an essential component of an RFID chip as disclosed by Craig; note Para. 0045 which outlines the chip transmitting and receiving data and therefore must include some form of data/signal processor) wherein data (from 20) pertaining to parameters of the tool (10) are transmitted to a machine (710; Para. 0037-0039) which includes processing the data with a processor (of chip 20) on the tool (10; note Para. 0039 discloses recording further parameters on the chip which readily requires a processor within the chip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized an RFID chip (including a processor) as taught by Craig in the method and system of Zieler. By modifying Zieler in this manner, not only can optimal parameters of the specific tool be communicated to the machine using the tool but further, individualized records for the particular tool can be provided as outlined by Craig (Para. 0045).
Further, attention can be brought to the teachings of Neubardt which includes another RFID device (136; Figure 2) on a tool (100) which is powered by a battery which is included on the tool (100; see Para. 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a battery to power such an RFID device as taught by Neubardt in the method/system of Zieler. By modifying Zieler in this manner, the parameters of the tool can be communicated (i.e. to a remote destination) whether or not being read by the machine.
Claims 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 60, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS), in view of Craig (US PGPUB 2009/0175694-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claims 49 and 50, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose storing the data on the tool as a function of time.
Attention is first brought to the teachings of Craig which includes a tool (10; Figure 10) that comprises a RFID chip (20) which readily includes a processor (note in order to store information and process data wirelessly, processors are an essential component of an RFID chip of Craig) wherein data (from 20) pertaining to parameters of the tool (10) are transmitted to a machine (710; Para. 0037-0039) which includes processing the data with the processor (of chip 20) on the tool (10) and further teaches storing the data on the tool as a function of time (see Para. 0039 which outlines storing operation time and further Para. 0041, 0045 outlines continuously communicating data in real time and therefore the data must be gathered based on time). .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized an RFID chip (including a processor) as taught by Craig in the method and system of Zieler such that data is stored on the tool over time of operation. By modifying Zieler in this manner, not only can optimal parameters of the specific tool be communicated to the machine using the tool but further, individualized records for the particular tool can be provided and stored on the tool as outlined by Craig (Para. 0045).
Regarding Claims 52 and 53, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a processor is supported on the tool in a housing, and a first parameter is sensed with a sensor in the housing, and a second parameter is sensed with a sensor outside of the housing and is further silent on the data from the sensor outside the housing is communicated to the processor inside the housing.
Attention is first brought to the teachings of Craig which includes a tool (10; Figure 10) that comprises a RFID chip (20) which readily includes a processor (note in order to store information and process data wirelessly, processors are an essential component of such an RFID chip of Craig), wherein the chip (20 including processor) is supported on the tool (10) in a housing (capsule 500; Para. 0033).
Craig further teaches communicating parameters such as temperature, speed and other conditions from the chip/processor (20; Para. 0045) and therefore some form of sensor must be readily associated with the chip/processor (20) and further outlines other parameters (hence sensors of some form) such as operation time, wear and failure information are communicated to the processor/chip (20; Para. 0039). Therefore, Craig clearly discloses several parameters being monitored and therefore sensors systems must exist for the corresponding parameters.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have monitored (via implied sensors) and provided feedback of several parameters to the chip/processor of the tool as taught by Craig in the method/system of Zieler as monitoring such parameters allows the operator to better control operation as well as minimize error and prevent tool failure and therefore allow for more financially beneficial process as taught by Craig (see Para. 0009).
Second, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the processor/chip within a housing on the tool as taught by Craig within Zieler and further incorporate sensors (i.e. timer) that do not need to be exposed within the housing as well in order to readily protect the chip and sensor system from damage during operation.
Regarding Claim 56, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose transmitting data to one or more of a smart phone, portable communications device, a data processing and control module, a user, a repeater antenna, a data storage unit, a data processor unit, for a second machine.
Craig further teaches transmitting data to a remote data storage unit (740; Figure 10), for a second machine (future use; Para. 0040, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have transmitted data pertaining to the tool to a remote storage unit as taught by Craig into method of Zieler as such transmission to a database readily allows for future reference/uploading and a central storage for several data sets of different tools as taught by Craig (see Paras. 0045, 0047).
Regarding Claim 60, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose calculating in a processor on the tool estimated remaining life of the tool, using one or more of tool usage time, geographic location, data from one or more of an accelerometer and stress sensor, and temperature of the tool as a function of time.
Attention is brought again to the teachings of Craig which includes a tool (10; Figure 10) that comprises a RFID chip (20) which readily includes a processor (note in order to store information and process data wirelessly, processors are an essential component of an RFID chip of Craig) wherein data (from 20) pertaining to parameters of the tool (10) are transmitted to a machine (710; Para. 0037-0039) which includes processing the data with the processor (of chip 20) on the tool (10) and further teaches calculating in the processor (of 20) on the tool (10) estimated remaining life of the tool (see “remaining cutting tool life information”; Para. 0039), using tool usage time (“cutting tool operation time”; Para. 0039; see Para. 0045 which outlines such gathered data (such as operation time) allows for determination of the tool life).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated such a calculation of tool life as taught by Craig into the method of Zieler as such a modification allows for determination of when it is appropriate to utilize a new tool as taught by Craig (Para. 0045). This further prevents damage the machine or injury of the operator due to the tool failing.
Regarding Claim 61, Zieler, as modified, specifically Craig discloses sending a signal for ordering a replacement part (“determine when it is appropriate to dispense a new tool 10 through the automated tool management system 730”; Para. 0045 of Craig) and although Craig does not explicitly disclose such a signal is from the tool (10) itself, the chip (20) comprises data including the life remaining and therefore transmission of a signal to indicate such a value corresponding to no life remaining to the read/write device can be readily implied.
Claims 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS), in view of Boeck (US PGPUB 2016/0375570).
Regarding Claims 57-58, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose locking out a machine based on data from the tool wherein the locking out the machine is based on data from one or more of a stress sensor, moisture sensor and an electrical resistance sensor, tool location and time of day.
Attention is brought to Boeck which teaches another machine (32a; Figures 1-2) including several sensors (of sensor unit 18a) including an acceleration sensors (i.e. 70a, 72a, 54a; Para. 0027, 0049, 0059), force sensor (pressure sensor), moisture sensor (Para. 0027) and location/GPS sensors (Para. 0027, 0031) an wherein the machine (32a) is locked out based on data gathered from the sensors (Para. 0018, 0028, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Zieler by incorporating monitoring of data such as tool location and locking out a machine based on such data as taught Boeck as such a modification allows for enhanced safety function of the tool as taught by Boeck (see Para. 0020).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS), in view of Wirnitzer (US PGPUB 2016/0279776).
Regarding Claims 59, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose changing a speed of the tool multiple times as a function of data received from one or more of an accelerometer, and stress sensor.
Attention is brought to Wirnitzer which includes a machine tool (66a; Figure 1) and operation thereof a control unit (12a) which adjusts a speed of the tool (66a) multiple times (continuously) as a function of data received from an accelerometer (18a), and stress sensor (in the form of a current sensor 20a or voltage sensor 22a; Para. 0028; note the speed is changed as a function and therefore the accelerations or current/voltage change, the speed will be adjusted).
Utilizing sensed feedback and adjusting a rotational speed of a power tool is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Zieler to adjust speed of the tool as a function of a signal of an acceleration and/or stress sensor as taught by Wirnitzer in order to accurate adjustment of the rotational speed can be obtained during operation of the tool as taught by Wirnitzer (Paras. 0009-0012).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS), in view of Schreiber (US PGPUB 2012/0318545-cited in IDS), and in further view of Laase (US PGPUB 2011/0273296).
Regarding Claims 62, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose analyzing data using a processor on the tool for harmonic frequencies.
Schreiber teaches another power tool machine (10; Figure 1) which includes a sensor (35) and controller (36) for identifying a tool (26) and its parameters (based on 39; Para. 0069, 0084) including stored characteristic values for vibrations and controlling the tool machine according to a comparison of the stored characteristic values for vibrations and the sensed vibrations (Para. 0025, 0026, see claim 1 of Schreiber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Zieler by including such vibration monitoring and control as taught by Schreiber in order to optimize operating performance as taught by Schreiber (Para. 0026).
Note further, Laase teaches an RFID tag (115; Figures 1-2) including a processor (Para. 0039) positioned on a tool (110) for monitoring vibrations (Para. 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Zieler to incorporate such a tag and processor on the tool as taught by Laase such that the data can be collected processed and stored on the tool itself and later accessed as taught by Laase (Para. 0039).
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zieler (US Patent 7,431,682-cited in IDS), in view of Schreiber (US PGPUB 2012/0318545).
Regarding Claims 63, Zieler discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose calculating a rental cost for rental of the tool as a function of one or more of tool usage time, geographic location, data from one or more of an accelerometer and stress sensor, and temperature of the tool as a function of time.
Attention is brought to Schreiber which outlines a tool (110; Figures 1-2) comprising an RFID tag (115) comprising a microprocessor (Para. 0039) wherein a rental cost for rental of the tool (110) is calculated as a function of one or more of tool usage time, geographic location, data from one or more of an accelerometer and stress sensor, and temperature of the tool as a function of time (see Para. 0039 which outlines temperature, environment, use time, speed and vibration ; Para. 0035-0037 specifies the usage time recording and calculation of the fee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Zieler by including such RFID tag, monitoring and calculation as taught by Schreiber in order to rent tools and further accurate track and account for the time in which the tool was in use as taught by Schreiber (Para. 0036).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 1/7/2026