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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on12/01/25.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 and 15 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 1, the limitations of “computing a tool wear indicator based on a combination of the acquired parameter data” and “determining that the tightening tool should be subjected to maintenance in response to the tool wear indicator exceeding a set maintenance threshold value” render the claim indefinite in that claim 1 does not define what constitutes the claimed “tool wear indicator” or the manner in which the acquired parameter data are “combined” to produce the tool wear indicator. The recited “combination” encompasses numerous different mathematical operations, algorithms, statistical analyses, weighting schemes, lookup tables, or other computational techniques, and the claim does not provide boundaries for determining the scope of the claimed “tool wear indicator.”
Additionally, claim 1 recites that maintenance is determined in response to the tool wear indicator exceeding a “set maintenance threshold value.” However, claim 1 does not specify whether the threshold value is predetermined, user-defined, automatically generated, fixed, dynamically updated, or otherwise established. In the absence of objective boundaries defining the claimed threshold value, the scope of the claim is uncertain.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “scheduling the maintenance based on an extent to which the computed wear score exceeds the set maintenance threshold value.”, renders the claim indefinite in that the phrase “extent to which” lacks boundaries. The claim does not specify whether the extent refers to an absolute difference, percentage, normalized value, weighted value, or another measurable quantity.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “determining that immediate maintenance should be performed if the computed tool wear indicator reaches a predetermined upper value.” render the claim indefinite in that it is unclear whether the recited “predetermined upper value” is distinct from the previously recited maintenance threshold value, whether it represents the same threshold, or how the upper value relates to the maintenance threshold.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of “a weighting factor is selected for further increasing the tool wear indicator.” renders the claim indefinite in that the claim does not recite how the weighting factor is selected, the criteria for its selection, or the relationship between the weighting factor and the operational parameters.
Claims 13 and 15 incorporate the same indefinite limitations regarding the computation of the tool wear indicator and the maintenance threshold value and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boisard et al. (2021/0199416).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Boisard discloses a method of a device (screw driving tool 10) of detecting that a tightening tool (10) should be subjected to maintenance (par. 50), the device comprising a processing unit (e.g. computer), the method comprising: acquiring data representing at least two selected operational parameters (e.g. angle and torque; par. 122) of the tightening tool; computing a tool wear indicator (e.g. signature) based on a combination of the acquired parameter data (par. 123); and determining that the tightening tool (10) should be subjected to maintenance in response to the tool wear indicator exceeding a set maintenance threshold value (pars. 124-132).
Regarding claim 2, Boisard discloses issuing an alert indicating that the tool should be subjected to maintenance (par. 126).
Regarding claim 3, Boisard discloses identifying one or more specific tool parts that should be subjected to maintenance based on the selected operational parameters of the tightening tool (See the Abstract; pars. 34, 47, 49).
Regarding claim 4, Boisard discloses scheduling the maintenance based on an extent to which the computed wear score exceeds the set maintenance threshold value (127, 161, 308-309).
Regarding claim 5, Boisard discloses wherein the scheduling comprises indicating a maximum number of tightening to be performed before the tightening tool should be subjected to maintenance (pars. 164, 168).
Regarding claim 6, Boisard discloses wherein the determining that the tightening tool should be subjected to maintenance comprises determining that immediate maintenance should be performed if the computed tool wear indicator reaches a predetermined upper value (Fig. 6c; par. 97).
Regarding 7, Boisard discloses wherein the computing of the tool wear indicator comprises computing a first wear score based on acquired data representing a first of the at least two selected operational parameters, and computing a second wear score based on acquired data representing a second of the at least two selected operational parameters, wherein the tool wear indicator is computed based on a combination of the first wear score and the second wear score (pars. 116, 123, 161, 178, 188-189, 197).
Regarding claim 8, Boisard discloses wherein the tool wear indicator is computed by adding the first wear score and the second wear score (e.g. first and second values).
Regarding claim 9, Boisard discloses wherein the alert is provided to an operator of the tightening tool via a tool interface (par. 127).
Regarding claim 10, Boisard discloses wherein the set maintenance threshold value is dynamically adjusted based on specific tightening tool applications (pars. 309-311, 315-316; claim 7).
Regarding 11, Boisard discloses wherein the at least two selected operational parameters of the tightening tool comprise applied torque and applied rotation angle.
Regarding claim 12, Boisard discloses wherein in case two or more of the selected operational parameters of the tightening tool individually results in tool wear indicator exceeding the set maintenance threshold value, a weighting factor is selected for further increasing the tool wear indicator (pars. 309-311, 315-316).
Regarding claim 13, Boisard discloses wherein a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said computer program product for detecting that a tightening tool should be subjected to maintenance, wherein said computer program product comprising computer instructions to cause a processing unit to perform the instructions disclosed above (pars. 84-85, 156; claim 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 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, 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 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights