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 .
The substitute specification filed April 28, 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: The change in language from “in particular” is limited to the limitations recited, while “for example” makes the phrasing to those recited and beyond, which is a change in disclosure and thereby new matter. See the marked-up copy, page 1, lines 8-9, page 2, lines 9 and 22, page 3, line 24, page 4, lines 3 and 11, page 6, lines 2-3, page 7, lines 2 and 15, page 8, lines 8 and 11, page 9, lines 13 and 16, page 10, lines 22-23 and 25, page 12, lines 6 and 24, page 13, lines 16-17, 19 and 22, page 14, lines 8-9, page 15, lines 6 and 12, page 24, line 14 and page 27, line 14.
The change of “specifically” to --such as-- is also a change in scope comprising new matter. See page 2, line 15.
The change of “comprises” to --includes-- is also a change in scope comprising new matter. See page 2, line 24.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 5, lines 2-3, “arranged on bottom” is ungrammatical. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1, lines 1 and 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See claim 2, lines 2 and 3 (twice), claim 15, line 3, claim 17, lines 3 and 4, claim 22, line 5, claim 23, line 3, and claim 24, line 2.
In claim 1, line 4, “a container” is indefinite whether such is one already defined, or a different one. Reference numerals are ignored in claim recitation. In lines 10, 12 and 16, “the receptacle” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 2 (twice), “the touch button” lacks antecedent basis. In line 3, “the container” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 3, “the container” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 2, “each receptacle is assigned a detector” is double recitation with claim 1, line 6.
In claim 7, line 2, “a receptacle” is indefinite whether such is a new or previously defined receptacle. Also in line 2, “the tool carrier” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 10, line 2, “the tool usage data”, “tool status data” and “tool user data” each lack antecedent basis. Also, the two “and/or” phrases are indefinite due to the slashes therein, and the phrasing should be --wherein at least one of the tool usage data, tool status data and tool user data-- would be proper if antecedently defined.
In claim 11, line 2, “the tool carrier” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 14, line 3, “the bottom surface” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 15, lines 3-4, the “and/or” is again indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --between at least one of circuit boards in a container (sic) and between circuit boards and a data processing unit--. In line 4, “a container” is indefinite whether such is one already defined, or a different one.
In claim 16, line 2, “the container” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 17, line 3, the “and/or” is again indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be –at least one of actuating a locking bar and that the functional electronics have a wireless communication module--.
In claim 18, line 3, the three “and/or” phrases are indefinite due to the slashes therein, and the phrasing should be --to display at least one of the presence of tools, the absence of tools and tool usage data and user data--.
In claim 19, line 2, “an optical signal element” is inconsistent with “at least one signal element” in the same line. In line 3, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 20, line 2, “the signal element” lacks singular antecedent basis.
In claim 21, line 2, “in a container” is indefinite whether such refers to a new container or one previously defined. Also, the two “and/or” phrases in lines 2 and 3 are indefinite due to the slashes therein, and the phrasing should be --at least one of the container, a front side of the container and on a display--.
In claim 22, the two “and/or” phrases in lines 3 and 4 are indefinite due to the slashes therein, and the phrasing should be –at least one of the closed state of the tool supply device, the battery charge level of an electrical energy supply unit and the completeness of a tool inventory--.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2009/0071854) in view of Ashcroft (11,762,500) and Vasudeva (5,918,741). Martin discloses a tool supply device as a tool cabinet (2), which has a housing (4) and containers as drawers (6a-6d) arranged therein, wherein at least one tool carrier (7) provided in one of the containers that has a plurality of receptacles (10a-10f) for tools, and a detector (12) assigned to each of the receptacles for detecting the presence of a tool in the receptacle, wherein the detector has a touch switch (see paragraph 0074, mechanical contact switch) with a contacting touch element wherein the touch element penetrates through an opening (sensor hole, paragraph 0073) in the tool carrier and projects with an active surface into the receptacle, wherein in at least one receptacle of a first type (any one of the different receptacles of Figure 3), the opening penetrates through the wall of the tool carrier below the receptacle (see Figure 3) and the touch element projects from below through the bottom of a receptacle of the first type, wherein in at least one receptacle of a second type (any one of the other different receptacles of Figure 3), the touch element projects into the at least one receptacle of a second type, wherein in at least one receptacle a holder element (peripheral wall) is arranged which acts as a positioning for a tool to be engaged. Martin does not disclose the touch element extending laterally, or a holder element that acts as a pressure element to secure a tool. However, Ashcroft discloses a lateral touch element (850 or 1130) of a sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Martin with a lateral touch element in the manner of Ashcroft as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a sensor disposed in a known and conventional arrangement without providing any new or unexpected result. Also, Vasudeva discloses a tool holder element (18) that acts as a pressure element to secure a tool within a device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Martin with a tool holder element in the manner of Vasudeva as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a pressure amplifier to better secure a tool in place.
As to claim 3, the touch switch (see paragraph 0074, mechanical contact switch) is arranged in a support body (7).
As to claim 4, wherein a support body (7) is supported at least indirectly on the bottom of the container.
As to claim 6, Martin discloses each receptacle (any one of the different receptacles of Figure 3) is assigned a detector (12) wherein all detectors are arranged in a horizontal plane.
As to claim 7, Martin discloses each receptacle (any one of the different receptacles of Figure 3) has a recess (10) in the at least one tool carrier (7) adapted to the shape of a specific tool.
As to claim 8, Vasudeva discloses the holder element (18) as a clamp-shaped holder element.
As to claims 9 and 10, Martin discloses a data processing unit (16) is provided which is intended and configured to receive signals from the detectors and have a computer record and document the removal and return of a tool.
As to claim 11, Martin discloses the at least one tool carrier (7) could be formed by a soft foam insert (see paragraphs 0006 and 0007).
As to claim 16, Martin discloses a locking system (see paragraph 0075) by means of which the at least one container is able to be centrally locked.
As to claims 18 and 21, Martin discloses a display (14 or 36) communicating with a data processing unit (16 or 32), the display serving as a signal element on a display (see Figure 5).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2016/096089. The previous art does not describe the touch element as a tappet. However, WO 2016/096089 disclose a sensor (16) employing a tappet (18) as a component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the touch element of the previous combination with a tappet structure in the manner of WO 2016/096089 as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a sensor of a known structure in the combination.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwong (6,859,854). The previous combination does not disclose the particular connecting structure amongst the electrical system. However, Kwong discloses it was known to employ a cable (20) for connecting a circuit board (30) to a data processing unit (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of the previous combination with a cable connecting a circuit board to a data processing unit in the manner of Kwong as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a conventional electrical interconnection of associated devices.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Connor (2020/0323377). Martin discloses a locking system, but not with electronics control. However, O’Connor discloses it was known to provide functional electronics to a locking actuator via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi (see paragraph 0107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of the previous combination with an actuated locking device (28) in the manner of O’Connor as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a remotely controllable locking of the device.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (12,086,103). Martin discloses a visual display (14 or 36) as an at least one signal element disposed in an edge protection element (see Figure 5), but not specifically comprising an LED. However, Lin discloses an LED bulb (33) as a signal element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of the previous combination with an LED providing a signal element in the manner of Lin as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a known signal element to provide the visual display of Martin.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bashkin (9,349,113). The previous combination does not disclose a signal unit to signal a closed state of the device. However, Bashkin discloses a storage container with a signal unit to signal a closed state of the device (see column 12, lines 49-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of the previous combination with a signal unit to signal a closed state of the device in the manner of Bashkin as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide an indication as to the propriety of the closure of the device.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wittig (11,253,088). The previous combination does not disclose the detector including an electrical plug interface. However, Wittig discloses a drawer (501) including a detector or sensor (20) including a plug interface (23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device drawer of Martin with a sensor or detector including a plug element in the manner of Wittig as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide an electrical power source for the sensor or detector.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savage et al.(2012/02003376). The previous combination does not disclose the device including a weighing system to assist in tool determination. However, Savage et al. disclose a presence sensor being a weighing system (see paragraphs 0049-0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of the previous combination with a weighing system in the manner of Savage et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a further indication of the tool presence within the device.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Dependent claims 12-14 would also then be allowable.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Orlando Aviles, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. 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.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG