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 .
The amendment filed April 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10 and 16 are amended. Claims 4-5, 9, 15 and 17-18 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-14 and 16 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amended claim 1 recites “A fitting for attaching an RFID tag to a grease nipple…..wherein the fitting is adapted to snap onto the grease nipple…”. Claim 2 recites “the fitting provides an easy snap-fit option for attaching the RDID tag to the grease nipple.” Claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 6, 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joss et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0147629 in view of Jolic, U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0107249, further in view of Willems et al., U.S. Patent 8,875,842
As per claim 1, Joss et al. discloses a fitting (30) [cover] for attaching an tag to a grease nipple (10), the fitting comprising:
a body (35, 47) containing or adapted to receive a tag (85) [indicator] (fig. 7), the body (35, 47) comprising an opening (77) (fig. 3B), wherein the body is adapted such that the tag attaches to the grease nipple (10) by using the opening (77) to attach at least a portion of the body (47) to the grease nipple (10) (fig. 4).
Joss et al. do not disclose the tag is an RFID tag. However, Jolic in his Lubrication Gun invention teaches the use of a RFID reader (48) for use with an RFID carrier (46) attached to a lubrication fitting (28) (figs. 7, 8) to store pertinent data such as type of lubrication needed and amount of lubrication needed for a mechanical device (para [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fitting of Joss et al. with an RFID tag, as taught by Jolic, for the purpose of being able to access lubrication information more easily, reliably and conveniently updateable than printed information.
Joss et al. do not disclose wherein the fitting is adapted to snap onto the grease nipple by adapting the opening to: receive the grease nipple therethrough, and fit snugly around the grease nipple when the grease nipple is received through the opening. However, Willems et al. in their Cap for a Grease Nipple device teach a protective cap for a grease nipple. The protective cap having an attachment portion (24) that has through holes (26, 27, 28, 29) that are used to secure the cap to the nipple by stretching the appropriately sized hole over the nipple head (col. 4, lines 30-37) (fig. 2C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination invention of Joss et al. and Jolic with through holes of assorted sizes, as taught by Willems et al., for the purpose of securing a fitting to a grease nipple without having to first remove the nipple from the mechanism to be lubricated.
As per claim 2, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the fitting (30) provides an easy snap fit option (Willems; col. 4, lines 30-37) (fig. 2C) for attaching the RFID tag to the grease nipple (10).
As per claim 3, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the fitting (30) is adapted such that:
the RFID tag (46) is attachable to the grease nipple (10) without needing to dismantle the grease nipple (10) (Willems; col. 4, lines 30-37), and/or
the RFID tag (46) is attachable to the grease nipple (10) without use of tools for installation (Willems; col. 4, lines 30-37).
As per claim 6, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the opening (Willems; 26, 27, 28, 29) is further adapted such that friction between the opening and the grease nipple (10) keeps the RFID tag (46) attached to the grease nipple (10) (Willems; col. 4, lines 30-37).
As per claim 10, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the opening (Willems; 26, 27, 28, 29) is substantially circular (Willems, fig. 2C).
As per claim 11, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the body (35, 47) further comprises a holder (recess for indicator 85 defined by inner surface 62 of wall 65) (para [0026]) (fig. 6) adapted to receive the RFID tag (46).
As per claim 12, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the holder is a cavity (para [0026]) (figs. 6, 7).
As per claim 13, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the holder (recess for indicator 85 defined by inner surface 62 of wall 65) (para [0026]) (fig. 6) is configured to receive a capsule containing the RFID tag (46). The holder in combination with protective member (70) (figs. 6, 7) forms a capsule containing the RFID tag per Joss et al. as modified.
As per claim 14, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose the body (35, 47) is a tab (fig. 3A).
As per claim 16, Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. as set forth above, Joss et al. as modified disclose at least the body (35, 47) is thin enough to enable a second coupling end (Jolic; near 20) of a modular device (grease gun, fig. 1, Jolic) to attach to the grease nipple (10) (fig. 4
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a fitting for attaching an RFID tag to a grease nipple, the fitting comprising: a body containing or adapted to receive an RFID tag, the body comprising an opening, wherein the body is adapted such that the RFID tag attaches to the grease nipple by using the opening to attach at least a portion of the body to the grease nipple, wherein the fitting is adapted to snap onto the grease nipple by adapting the opening to: receive the grease nipple therethrough, and fit snugly around the grease nipple when the grease nipple is received through the opening; wherein the opening comprises one or more notches to enable clipping.
The closest art is considered to be the combination of Joss et al., Jolic and Willems et al. Particularly, the combination invention using the teaching of Willems et al. to locate a fitting to snap onto a grease nipple for a snug fit to prevent the fitting from falling off. Willems et al. teach plain diameter openings (fig. 2C) for the snap fit. However, amended claim 1 recites “the fitting is adapted to snap onto the grease nipple by adapting the opening to: receive the grease nipple therethrough, and fit snugly around the grease nipple when the grease nipple is received through the opening; wherein the opening comprises one or more notches to enable clipping.” The opening including one or more notches enables an easier snap fit over the grease nipple while maintaining a snug fit once in position. The notches would not have been an obvious modification. For these reasons, in combination with the rest of the structure as claimed in claims 1 and 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571)270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/M.K.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights