DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 52 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 52 recites, “An odometer assembly according to claim 51…” However, the preamble of claim 51 introduces a pneumatic tool cycle counter, or odometer, assembly….” Therefore, it appears that the preamble of claim 52 should instead recite, “A pneumatic tool cycle counter, or odometer, assembly according to claim 51…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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 51-52, 54, and 58-61 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 51, the claim recites the limitation "portions of a micro-computer assembly." This phrasing renders the claim indefinite because it fails to specify which portions are being claimed and which are being excluded. This broad and ambiguous language blurs the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, leaving a person having ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the exact scope of the micro-computer assembly encompassed by the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as "a micro-computer assembly."
Regarding claim 58, the claim recites the limitation "wherein an actuation is defined as…" However, claim 58 depends on claim 55, which does not recite the term "actuation" (claim 55 instead recites "activation" and "trigger pulls, or cycles"). Therefore, the limitation "an actuation" lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears that claim 58 should instead depend on claim 56, which introduces the term "actuation."
Regarding claims 52, 54, and 59-61, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 51-52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lysaght (US 5,937,370).
Regarding claim 51, Lysaght discloses a pneumatic tool cycle counter, or odometer, assembly (Figures 1 and 3) for use with pneumatic torque tools for tightening and/or loosening threaded fasteners including: a pressure sensor/transducer assembly (Figure 1, 12); portions of a micro-computer assembly (16) with associated computer programs (18); and a human/electronic interface assembly (28).
Regarding claim 52, Lysaght further discloses wherein the odometer assembly recognizes, records and displays internal pressure drops associated with each activation of and corresponding to trigger pulls, or cycles, of the tool (Figure 1, #18. This is further described in col 2, lines 57-65).
Regarding claim 55, Lysaght discloses a pneumatic tool cycle counter, or odometer, assembly (Figures 1 and 3) for use with pneumatic torque tools for tightening and/or loosening threaded fasteners, comprising: a pressure sensor/transducer assembly (Figure 1, 12); a micro-computer assembly (16) including associated computer program instructions (18); and a human/electronic interface assembly (28), wherein the micro-computer assembly is configured to process data output by the pressure sensor/transducer assembly and to recognize and record rapid internal pressure drops that occur upon activation of the pneumatic torque tool (Described in claim 1 of the prior art), the rapid internal pressure drops correlating to trigger pulls, or cycles, of the pneumatic torque tool (Described in claim 1 of the prior art), and wherein the human/electronic interface assembly is configured to display a running total of the cycles (Figure 1, 20. Further described in claim 1 of the prior art).
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.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lysaght in view of Dudek (US 4,281,538).
Regarding claim 54, Lysaght does not specifically teach a pneumatic torque tool for tightening and/or loosening threaded fasteners including an odometer assembly according to claim 51 integrated with and/or formed within the tool.
Dudek teaches a pneumatic torque tool for tightening and/or loosening threaded fasteners including an odometer assembly according to claim 51 integrated with and/or formed within the tool (Described in the abstract, and in col 1, lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lysaght to incorporate the teachings of Dudek to include integrating the assembly within a tool with the motivation of providing an assembly for controlling the operation of a pneumatic tool, as recognized by Dudek in col 1, lines 15-36.
Claims 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudek in view of Lysaght.
Regarding claim 68, Dudek teaches a pneumatic torque tool for tightening and/or loosening threaded fasteners, comprising: a housing (Shown in figure 1); an air motor disposed in the housing (Shown in figure 1 and described in col 2, lines 3-17); a trigger (109) configured to actuate the air motor (Shown in figure 1).
Dudek does not specifically teach an odometer assembly according to claim 55 integrated with the pneumatic torque tool, wherein the odometer assembly is configured to recognize and record pressure drops that correlate to trigger pulls, or cycles, of the pneumatic torque tool, and to display a running total of the cycles on a display.
Lysaght teaches an odometer assembly according to claim 55 integrated with the pneumatic torque tool (Shown in figure 1-3), wherein the odometer assembly is configured to recognize and record pressure drops that correlate to trigger pulls, or cycles, of the pneumatic torque tool, and to display a running total of the cycles on a display (Figure 1, #18. This is further described in col 2, lines 57-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dudek to incorporate the teachings of Lysaght to include an assembly according to claim 55 for determining a number of cycles with the motivation of providing a device for tracking the use of a tool, as recognized by Lysaght in described in col 2, lines 57-65.
Regarding claim 69, Dudek further teaches wherein the odometer assembly is provided in a modified rear cover of the pneumatic torque tool (Shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 70, Dudek further teaches wherein the odometer assembly is configured to provide a user interface for making adjustments and configuration changes to the pneumatic torque tool (User interface shown in figure 1).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudek in view of Lysaght, and in further view of Sin Etke Technology (DE 202005021340).
Regarding claim 72, Dudek in view of Lysaght does not specifically teach wherein an actuation count value is in a range of 0 to 99,999, and wherein the odometer assembly continues counting beyond 99,999.
Sin Etke Technology teaches wherein an actuation count value is in a range of 0 to 99,999, and wherein the odometer assembly continues counting beyond 99,999 (Described in ¶ [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dudek in view of Lysaght to incorporate the teachings of Sin Etke Technology to include the counting of cycles with the motivation of providing information corresponding to certain cycle milestones, as recognized by Sin Etke Technology in ¶ [0014].
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections are overcome, claims 56-61 and 71 would be 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.
Claims 62-67 are deemed allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior arts all teach various aspects of pneumatic tools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731