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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-16, 18, 20, 23-25 and 31-32 remain withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “circumferential direct” on line 10 appears to contain a typographical error. Perhaps the phrase “circumferential direction” would be more appropriate.
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 1-5, 9-10, 29, and 34-38 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position.”
In the original disclosure, the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is axially aligned (or aligned along the axial direction of the shaft) with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is axially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position. Circumferential alignment between two things suggests that one follows the other along the circumferential direction, which is not the case between the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is and the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment, for example. Accordingly, claim 1 contains new matter.
Claims 2-5, 9-10, 29, and 34-38 contain new matter for depending from claim 1.
Claim 37 recites “wherein no portion of each of the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments contacts any portion of the connector.”
As broadly recited, the phrase “the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments” is not limited to the outermost surfaces of the abutments facing in the circumferential direction. This means thickness-wise portions of the first and second abutments along the circumferential direction, which read on the claimed circumferential sides, contact portions of the connector. Additionally, the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments (even considered as mere surfaces) contact portions of the connector along the radial direction (i.e. edge contact). Accordingly, claim 37 contains new matter.
The Examiner suggests adding the phrase “in the circumferential direction” to the end of the claim.
Claim 38 recites “wherein an abutment locating portion of the outer surface includes the first portion and extends unendingly from a first location circumferentially offset in a first circumferential direction from the first portion and second location circumferentially offset in a second circumferential direction from the first portion opposite the first circumferential direct, and
wherein no portion of the abutment locating portion nor the first portion of the outer surface of the first and second connectors contacts the first and second circumferential sides of a respective one of the first and second abutments.
The term “unendingly,” emphasized above, is new matter since no surface or portion of the originally disclosed device extends unendingly. The Examiner suggests deleting the term “unendingly.”
The last 3 lines of claim 38 contain new matter for the same reasons as claim 37 discussed above. The Examiner suggests adding the phrase “in the circumferential direction” to the end of the claim.
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 1-5, 9-10, 29, and 34-38 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position.”
In the original disclosure, the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is axially aligned (or aligned along the axial direction) with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is axially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position. Circumferential alignment between two things suggests that one follows the other along the circumferential direction, which is not the case between the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is and the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment, for example. Accordingly, it is unclear how the recited sides are circumferentially aligned as claimed.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is axially aligned with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is axially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position.
Claims 2-5, 9-10, 29, and 34-38 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim 37 recites “wherein no portion of each of the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments contacts any portion of the connector.” As broadly recited, the phrase “the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments” is not limited to the outermost surfaces of the abutments facing in the circumferential direction. This means thickness-wise portions of the first and second abutments along the circumferential direction, which read on the claimed circumferential sides, contact portions of the connector. Additionally, the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments (even considered as mere surfaces) contact portions of the connector along the radial direction (i.e. edge contact). Accordingly, it is unclear how “no portion of each of the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments contacts any portion of the connector” in light of the specification.
The Examiner suggests adding the phrase “in the circumferential direction” to the end of the claim.
Claim 38 recites “wherein an abutment locating portion of the outer surface includes the first portion and extends unendingly from a first location circumferentially offset in a first circumferential direction from the first portion and second location circumferentially offset in a second circumferential direction from the first portion opposite the first circumferential direct, and
wherein no portion of the abutment locating portion nor the first portion of the outer surface of the first and second connectors contacts the first and second circumferential sides of a respective one of the first and second abutments.
The term “unendingly,” emphasized above, makes the claim indefinite since no surface or portion of the originally disclosed device extends unendingly. Accordingly, it is unclear how the abutment locating portion extends unendingly as claimed. The Examiner suggests deleting the term “unendingly.” For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the term “unendingly” is not recited.
The last 3 lines of claim 38 are indefinite for the same reasons as claim 37 discussed above. The Examiner suggests adding the phrase “in the circumferential direction” to the end of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Adler (US 3850030 A).
As to claim 1, Adler teaches a device for monitoring a mechanical system that includes a rotating shaft, the device comprising:
a connector 11-12 configured to couple to a rotating shaft (col. 2 lines 35-45), the connector having a first reference location (at part 11) and a second reference location (at part 12);
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S4)][AltContent: textbox (S3)][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
166
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (SP)][AltContent: textbox (FZ)]
a bridge 14 coupled to the connector and extending between the first reference location and the second reference location, the bridge being configured to be disposed such that a longitudinal axis thereof is laterally offset from a central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft when the connector is coupled to the rotating shaft, the longitudinal axis and the central longitudinal axis being substantially parallel to each other, and the bridge including a flexure zone FZ (fig. 5B above) configured to deform in response to the rotating shaft undergoing a torsional force during operation of the rotating shaft (col. 3 lines 20-25); and
a strain-measuring sensor 1-4 associated with the bridge, disposed between the first reference location and the second reference location (col. 3 lines 9-20), wherein a signal of the sensor is configured to be utilized to determine a magnitude of the torsional force experienced by the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft based on a strain measured by the strain-measuring sensor (col. 3 lines 26-40),
wherein the bridge further includes:
[AltContent: textbox (SA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FA)]
PNG
media_image2.png
214
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first abutment FA (fig. 4 above) coupled to the connector more proximate to the first reference location than the second reference location;
a second abutment SA (fig. 4 above) coupled to the connector more proximate to the second reference location than the first reference location; and
a span SP (fig. 5B above) extending between the first abutment and the second abutment, the strain-measuring sensor being associated with the span,
wherein the first and second abutments are coupled to the connector so as to locate at least a portion of the connector radially between the first and second abutments and the rotating shaft (fig. 1),
wherein the flexure zone is located on the span of the bridge,
wherein the span of the bridge has a stiffness that is less than a stiffness of the first and second abutments (see figs. 5B-5C and col. 3 lines 20-25, which teach narrow flexible portions in between the first and second abutments, wherein the deformation is concentrated at the flexible portions), and
wherein the first abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side S1 (fig. 5B above) and a second circumferentially-facing side S2 (fig. 5B above) opposite the first circumferentially-facing side, wherein the second abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side S3 (fig. 5B above) and a second circumferentially-facing side S4 (fig. 5B above) opposite the circumferentially-facing side, and wherein the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position (the initial position can be interpreted as a rotational position of the prior art device about the shaft; when there is a small amount of torque, and the flexing in fig. 5B is much smaller, sides S1, S3 are substantially aligned in the horizontal direction of the figure, and sides S2, S4 are substantially aligned in the horizontal direction of the figure; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 2, Adler teaches wherein each of the connector, the bridge, and the strain- measuring sensor are configured to rotate with the rotating shaft such that strain is measured by the strain-measuring sensor without a stationary reference frame (see col. 2 lines 30-45; also see col. 3 lines 26-58, which teaches that the measurement from the strain measuring sensor 1-4 is transmitted wirelessly by a transmitter 26 to a stationary receiver located in housing 13, while the shaft 10 rotates).
As to claim 3, Adler teaches wherein the strain-measuring sensor is further configured to detect bending of the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft (see fig. 5C; while col. 3 lines 23-25 teach that the outputs from the strain gauges 1-4 used to cancel each other out in the presence of bending, they are capable of being used to not cancel each other out such that they are used to detect bending; for example, the outputs from the strain gauges 1-4 are capable of being read individually, which would enable an amount of bending to be determined).
As to claim 9, Adler teaches wherein the connector further comprises:
a first collar 11 that includes the first reference location, the first abutment being coupled to the first collar; and
a second collar 12 that includes the second reference location, the second abutment being coupled to the second collar.
As to claim 10, Adler teaches wherein the strain-measuring sensor is configured to measure strain in tension (see stain gauges 1 and 3, which are being stretched in fig. 5B; note that reference characters 1 and 3 are present in fig. 5A but not in fig. 5B).
As to claim 34, Adler teaches wherein the first and second abutments are directly coupled to a radially outermost portion (comprising notches 11a, 12a – fig. 4) of the connector.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler in view of Gleeson (US 20180080840 A1).
As to claim 4, Adler as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except an accelerometer configured to determine a rotational speed of the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft.
Gleeson teaches a dynamometer (title) comprising an accelerometer (not shown) configured to determine a rotational speed of a rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft (¶94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Adler to comprise an accelerometer configured to determine the rotational speed of the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft as taught by Gleeson for maintenance purposes (Adler’s shaft is a propulsion shaft, as taught in the abstract, meaning that a problem with propulsion may be detected if the detected angular speed of the shaft does not match an expected angular speed).
As to claim 5, Adler as modified teaches wherein a signal of the accelerometer is configured to be utilized to detect an amplitude of vibrations present on the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft (¶94 of Gleeson teaches that the sensitive axis of the accelerometer is perpendicular to the shaft, meaning that the amplitude of vibrations along the sensitive axis, on the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft, will be detected).
Claim(s) 1, 34, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiman (US 5546817 A) in view of Lohr et al. (US 7222541 B2, hereinafter Lohr).
As to claim 1, Heiman teaches a device for monitoring a mechanical system that includes a rotating shaft, the device comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (30Y)][AltContent: textbox (30X)]
PNG
media_image3.png
420
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a connector 30X, 30Y, 32, 32, 32, 32 (see fig. 5 above) configured to couple to a rotating shaft (the device of Heiman attaches to a cylindrical structure 1, meaning the connector is capable of being coupled to a rotating shaft), the connector having a first reference location (at part 30X) and a second reference location (at part 30Y);
[AltContent: textbox (SP2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (FZ2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image4.png
348
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a bridge 4 coupled to the connector and extending between the first reference location and the second reference location, the bridge being configured to be disposed such that a longitudinal axis thereof is laterally offset from a central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft when the connector is coupled to the rotating shaft (see fig. 2), the longitudinal axis and the central longitudinal axis being substantially parallel to each other (fig. 5), and the bridge including a flexure zone FZ2 (fig. 6 above) configured to deform in response to the rotating shaft undergoing a torsional force (col. 3 lines 1-3) during operation of the rotating shaft (the device of Heiman is capable of exhibiting the deformation in fig. 6 if used with a rotating shaft experiencing a torque); and
a strain-measuring sensor 10-13 associated with the bridge, disposed between the first reference location and the second reference location, wherein a signal of the sensor is configured to be utilized to determine a magnitude of the torsional force experienced by the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft based on a strain measured by the strain-measuring sensor (see the title, col. 3 lines 42-48, and col. 5 lines 34-38; the strain is capable of being caused by a rotating shaft under a torsional load) ,
wherein the bridge further includes:
a first abutment 8 coupled to the connector more proximate to the first reference location than the second reference location;
a second abutment 9 coupled to the connector more proximate to the second reference location than the first reference location; and
a span SP2 (fig. 6 above) extending between the first abutment and the second abutment, the strain-measuring sensor being associated with the span,
wherein the first and second abutments are coupled to the connector so as to locate at least a portion of the connector radially between the first and second abutments and the rotating shaft (when viewed in the axial direction, as shown in fig. 1, at least part of the connector is radially between the abutments and the cylindrical structure 1, where a rotating shaft could be located; additionally or alternatively, parts 32, 32, 32, 32 of the connector are at least partially radially between the abutments and the cylindrical structure 1, where a rotating shaft could be located),
wherein the flexure zone is located on the span of the bridge, and
[AltContent: textbox (S4_2)][AltContent: textbox (S3_2)][AltContent: textbox (S2_2)][AltContent: textbox (S1_2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
348
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side S1_2 (fig. 6 above) and a second circumferentially-facing side S2_2 (fig. 6 above) opposite the first circumferentially-facing side, wherein the second abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side S3_2 (fig. 6 above) and a second circumferentially-facing side S4_2 (fig. 6 above) opposite the circumferentially-facing side, and wherein the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis in an initial position (see the initial position shown in fig. 5, which can be a rotational position of the device; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim; note that the circumferential sides in Heiman are considered to be circumferentially facing side surfaces).
Heiman does not explicitly teach wherein the span of the bridge has a stiffness that is less than a stiffness of the first and second abutments.
Lohr teaches a bridge 1 (fig. 1) having a span 4 with a stiffness that is less than a stiffness of the first and second abutments 2-3 of the bridge (col. 3 lines 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Heiman such that the abutments are stiffer than the span, as taught by Lohr, so as to increase the durability of the abutments to reduce the risk of damage thereto.
[AltContent: textbox (ROP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image5.png
420
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 34, Heiman teaches wherein the first and second abutments are directly coupled to a radially outermost portion ROP (fig. 3 above; it is noted that while only one side of the connector is shown in fig. 2, it is interpreted that both sides of the connector have the radially outermost portion ROP because col. 3 lines 58-59 teach that the clamps 30 are identical) of the connector.
As to claim 37, Heiman teaches wherein no portion of each of the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments contacts any portion of the connector (see fig. 5; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 38, Heiman teaches wherein the first and second connectors each include an outer surface,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ALP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (FP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image5.png
420
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the first and second abutments each include a radially inwardly-facing surface that contacts (at the edges of the inwardly facing surfaces) a first portion FP (fig. 2 above) of the outer surface of a respective one of the first and second connectors (clamps 30 are identical – col. 3 lines 55-60), the first portion being delimited by locations at which the first and second circumferential sides of the first and second abutments contact the outer surface,
wherein an abutment locating portion ALP (fig. 2 abpve) of the outer surface includes the first portion and extends unendingly (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) from a first location L1 (fig. 2 above) circumferentially offset in a first circumferential direction from the first portion and second location L2 (fig. 2 above) circumferentially offset in a second circumferential direction from the first portion opposite the first circumferential direct (see figs. 2 and 5; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim), and
wherein no portion of the abutment locating portion nor the first portion of the outer surface of the first and second connectors contacts the first and second circumferential sides of a respective one of the first and second abutments (see fig. 5; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiman in view of Lohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwahashi (JP 3029548 U).
As to claim 29, Heiman teaches wherein the flexure zone is located on the span,
wherein a longitudinal axis of the connector extends through a center of the connector (fig. 2),
wherein the span is disposed at a non-orthogonal angle with respect to the first and second abutments such that a longitudinal axis of the span is not parallel with the longitudinal axis of the connector and the central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft in an initial position (see fig. 6), and
wherein the flexure zone includes a transverse width that is smaller than a transverse width of the first and second abutments (see fig. 6).
Heiman as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the flexure zone is configured to be stretched from the initial position in some instances in response to application of torsion to the bridge and compressed from the initial position in some other instances in response to application of torsion to the bridge.
Iwahashi teaches a device for monitoring a mechanical system that includes a rotating shaft 1, the device comprising:
a connector 2-5 configured to couple to a rotating shaft (drive shaft - ¶15), the connector having a first reference location (location of elements 2-3) and a second reference location (location of elements 4-5);
[AltContent: textbox (SP3)][AltContent: textbox (FZ3)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (26BX)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (A2)][AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image6.png
471
533
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a bridge 26 (the Examiner notes that elements 20, 23 in fig. 1 are dummy bridges which are used only for alignment purposes and which are replaced with element 26 - ¶22-23) coupled to the connector and extending between the first reference location and the second reference location (i.e. as viewed in a direction normal to the plane of fig. 3, or in the vertical direction of fig. 3), the bridge being configured to be disposed such that a longitudinal axis thereof is laterally offset from a central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft when the connector is coupled to a rotating shaft 1 (¶23 and fig. 4), the longitudinal axis and the central longitudinal axis being substantially parallel to each other (see fig. 3), and the bridge including a flexure zone FZ3 (fig. 5 above) configured to deform in response to the rotating shaft undergoing a torsional force during operation of the rotating shaft (¶23-25); and
a strain-measuring sensor 26B, 26B, 26B, 26B (figs. 3 and 5) associated with the bridge, disposed between the first reference location and the second reference location, wherein a signal of the sensor is configured to be utilized to determine a magnitude of the torsional force experienced by the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft based on a strain measured by the strain-measuring sensor (¶23-25 teach that the strain measuring sensor detects strain caused by torque acting on the shaft; accordingly, the measured strain is capable of being used to determine the torque),
wherein the bridge further includes:
a first abutment A1 (fig. 5 above) coupled to the connector more proximate to the first reference location than the second reference location;
a second abutment A2 (fig. 5 above) coupled to the connector more proximate to the second reference location than the first reference location;
a span SP3 (fig. 5 above) extending between the first abutment and the second abutment, the strain-measuring sensor being associated with the span,
wherein the first and second abutments are coupled to the connector so as to locate at least a portion of the connector radially between the first and second abutments and the rotating shaft (see figs. 2-3),
wherein the flexure zone is located on the span of the bridge,
[AltContent: textbox (A2F1)][AltContent: textbox (A2F2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A1F2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A1F1)]
PNG
media_image6.png
471
533
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the first abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side A1F1 (fig. 5 above) and a second circumferentially-facing side A1F2 (fig. 5 above) opposite the first circumferentially-facing side, wherein the second abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side A2F1 (fig. 5 above) and a second circumferentially-facing side A2F2 (fig. 5 above) opposite the circumferentially-facing side,
wherein the flexure zone is located on the span (fig. 5 above),
wherein a longitudinal axis of the connector extends through a center (e.g. substantially through the center) of the connector (figs. 1-2),
wherein the span is disposed at a non-orthogonal angle (i.e. substantially at a non-orthogonal angle – fig. 5) with respect to the first and second abutments such that a longitudinal axis of the span is not parallel (e.g. substantially not parallel) with the longitudinal axis of the connector and the central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft in an initial position (see fig. 5; it is noted that ¶25 teaches that the strain sensors are assembled on the bridge in the state that part of the span forms angle B with respect to axis C in fig. 5, and ¶29 teaches that the flexure zone comprises a part with a parallelogram shape as shown in fig. 5; it is further noted that ¶25, ¶29 and fig. 5 teach that the span is substantially formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the rotation shaft in the absence of torque), and
wherein the flexure zone is configured to be stretched from the initial position in some instance in response to application of torsion to the bridge (e.g. when the direction of torque pulls the abutments apart along the circumferential direction in fig. 5) and compressed from the initial position in some other instances in response to application of torsion to the bridge (e.g. when the direction of torque brings the abutments closer to each other along the circumferential direction in fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Heiman as modified such that the span is disposed at a non-orthogonal angle with respect to the first and second abutments such that a longitudinal axis of the span is not parallel with the longitudinal axis of the connector and the central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft in an initial position, and wherein the flexure zone is configured to be stretched from the initial position in some instance in response to application of torsion to the bridge and compressed from the initial position in some other instances in response to application of torsion to the bridge, as taught by Iwahashi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of configuring the span and using strain gauges for torque detection for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (JP H0321747 U) in view of Lohr et al. (US 7222541 B2, hereinafter Lohr).
As to claim 1, Kitagawa teaches a device for monitoring a mechanical system that includes a rotating shaft, the device comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SA4)][AltContent: textbox (FA4)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (FZ4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (2B)][AltContent: textbox (2A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
158
358
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a connector 2A, 2B (fig.1 above) configured to couple to a rotating shaft 1 (see pg. 2 of the translation, on the last 10 lines), the connector having a first reference location (at part 2A) and a second reference location (at part 2B);
a bridge 3 coupled to the connector and extending between the first reference location and the second reference location, the bridge being configured to be disposed such that a longitudinal axis thereof is laterally offset from a central longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft when the connector is coupled to the rotating shaft, the longitudinal axis and the central longitudinal axis being substantially parallel to each other, and the bridge including a flexure zone FZ4 (fig. 1 above) configured to deform in response to the rotating shaft undergoing a torsional force during operation of the rotating shaft (see page 3 of the translation, on the last 5 lines); and
a strain-measuring sensor 4 associated with the bridge, disposed between the first reference location and the second reference location, wherein a signal of the sensor is configured to be utilized to determine a magnitude of the torsional force experienced by the rotating shaft during operation of the rotating shaft based on a strain measured by the strain-measuring sensor (see page 3 of the translation, on the last 5 lines; see pg. 4 of the translation, on lines 15-17; see page 5 of the translation, on lines 12-15),
wherein the bridge further includes:
a first abutment FA4 (fig. 1 above) coupled to the connector more proximate to the first reference location than the second reference location;
a second abutment SA4 (fig. 1 above) coupled to the connector more proximate to the second reference location than the first reference location; and
[AltContent: textbox (S3_4)][AltContent: textbox (S1_4)]
[AltContent: textbox (S4_4)][AltContent: textbox (S2_4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SP4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image7.png
158
358
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a span SP4 (fig. 1 above) extending between the first abutment and the second abutment, the strain-measuring sensor being associated with the span,
wherein the first and second abutments are coupled to the connector so as to locate at least a portion of the connector radially between the first and second abutments and the rotating shaft (fig. 1),
wherein the flexure zone is located on the span of the bridge (fig. 1), and
wherein the first abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side S1_4 (fig. 1 above) and a second circumferentially-facing side S2_4 (fig. 1 above) opposite the first circumferentially-facing side, wherein the second abutment includes a first circumferentially-facing side S3_4 (fig. 1 above) and a second circumferentially-facing side S4_4 (fig. 1 above) opposite the circumferentially-facing side, and wherein the first circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the first circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment and the second circumferentially-facing side of the first abutment is circumferentially aligned with the second circumferentially-facing side of the second abutment relative to the central longitudinal axis (see fig. 1; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) in an initial position (e.g. a rotational position of the device and rotational shaft shown in fig. 1).
Kitagawa does not explicitly teach wherein the span of the bridge has a stiffness that is less than a stiffness of the first and second abutments.
Lohr teaches a bridge 1 (fig. 1) having a span 4 with a stiffness that is less than a stiffness of the first and second abutments 2-3 of the bridge (col. 3 lines 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kitagawa such that the abutments are stiffer than the span, as taught by Lohr, so as to increase the durability of the abutments to reduce the risk of damage thereto.
As to claim 9, Kitagawa teaches wherein the connector further comprises:
a first collar 2A that includes the first reference location, the first abutment being coupled to the first collar; and
a second collar 2B that includes the second reference location, the second abutment being coupled to the second collar.
As to claim 35, Kitagawa teaches wherein the first and second collars each include an outer circumferential surface,
wherein the first abutment is directly coupled to a radially outermost portion of the outer circumferential surface of the first collar (figs. 1-3), and
wherein the second abutment is directly coupled to a radially outermost portion of the outer circumferential surface of the second collar (figs. 1-3).
As to claim 36, Kitagawa teaches wherein the radially outermost portion (this comprises the outermost cylindrical surfaces of parts 2A-2B) of the outer circumferential surfaces of the first and second collars define a portion of the outer circumferential surfaces of the first and second collars that is located furthest radially away from a center of the first and second collars relative to a remainder of the outer circumferential surface of the first and second collars (see figs. 1-3; the “remainder” comprises one or more radially outwardly facing surfaces in the holes of the connector 2A-2B for the screws 10).
If Applicant argues that Kitawaga as modified does not explicitly teach that the radially outermost portion indicated by the Examiner above is not the radially outermost portion, then such an alleged difference between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, it has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, the shape of the instant connector’s outer surface is not significantly novel over Kitagawa. Both connectors have a substantially cylindrical outer surface for mounting a torque sensing strain sensor. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of Kitagawa’s connector such that the outer cylindrical surface to which the bridge is attached is indeed the radially outermost portion (i.e. there are no arbitrary unillustrated radial protrusions preventing the shown cylindrical surface from being the radially outermost portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kitagawa as modified to be shaped such that the outer cylindrical surface of the connector is the radially outermost portion since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the connector for the predictable result that the design complexity of the connector is minimized and/or such that the connector is easier and/or cheaper to produce, and/or for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that claims 1, 15 and 31 have unity of invention.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 is rejected with prior art, meaning that claims 15 and 31 lack unity of invention with claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Inventor Declaration Under 1.132
The inventor argues on pg. 2 that the claimed circumferential alignment of the sides of the abutments provides new or unexpected results.
The inventor’s argument is not persuasive since the original specification is silent as to the alleged new or unexpected results, and there is no evidence that Applicant/inventor contemplated the alleged new or unexpected results at the time of filing. Adding new or unexpected results via an affidavit, where the original specification is completely silent as to the alleged new or unexpected results (regarding the circumferential alignment of the abutment sides) would introduce new matter into the specification. Additionally, “new” results are not necessarily unexpected, and are not necessarily evidence of nonobviousness.
The inventor argues on pg. 2 that aligning the abutments as recited in claim 1 has the alleged effect of “being aligned with each other, provides at least a benefit of simplifying and increasing the accuracy of the torque determination in the shaft while maintaining an uncomplicated setup that can be applied to a wide variety of shafts with no modification of the shafts required, as noted in the benefits in the paragraph 8 of this Affidavit. Specifically, when forces other than torque, such as bending or tension, act on the shaft being measured, the abutments not being circumferentially aligned can result in complex strain measurements, thus making it difficult to determine only torque.”
The inventor’s arguments are not persuasive. The inventor fails to articulate how the alleged benefits of “provides at least a benefit of simplifying and increasing the accuracy of the torque determination in the shaft while maintaining an uncomplicated setup that can be applied to a wide variety of shafts with no modification of the shafts required” would be contrary to the expectations of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, they are not unexpected results.
Additionally, ¶51 discloses
“If torque on the rotating shaft 12 is relatively constant within a rotation of the shaft, the bending and the torque of the shaft can be easily extracted from a strain signal measurement form the strain sensor 18. The strain signal can be averaged over a rotation of the shaft 12 to calculate an accurate torque of the shaft. Fluctuation of the strain signal in a cycle of the shaft 12 can be used to determine the bending of the shaft. Accordingly, the strain sensor 18 can be used to detect both torque and bending of the shaft 12, which can be useful in cost sensitive or volume constrained systems.”
The instant specification admits that torque is easy to calculate in the presence of bending, by averaging the strain measurement. The specification does not attribute the ease of measuring torque, in the presence of bending, to the alignment of the abutment sides. Accordingly, the inventor’s argument that it would be difficult to determine torque without aligning the abutment sides is contradictory to the instant specification and is not persuasive.
The inventor’s argument’s regarding the NL ‘746 reference on pg. 3 are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The inventor argues on pg. 3 that “in many diagnostic analyses of sophisticated machinery, it is desirable to focus on a single mechanical parameters, such as torsion, bending, tension, or compression, depending on the intended practical use. Accordingly, a simple and accurate method for measuring only a single parameter is required, without contamination from other mechanical forces such as bending. The concept of not contaminating the measurement of the single parameter is not addressed by the prior art.”
The inventor’s argument is not persuasive. ¶51 discloses
“If torque on the rotating shaft 12 is relatively constant within a rotation of the shaft, the bending and the torque of the shaft can be easily extracted from a strain signal measurement form the strain sensor 18. The strain signal can be averaged over a rotation of the shaft 12 to calculate an accurate torque of the shaft. Fluctuation of the strain signal in a cycle of the shaft 12 can be used to determine the bending of the shaft. Accordingly, the strain sensor 18 can be used to detect both torque and bending of the shaft 12, which can be useful in cost sensitive or volume constrained systems.”
The inventor’s argument is contradictory to the instant specification, which stresses the desirability and usefulness of detecting both torque and bending simultaneously.
In response to the inventor’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “snot contaminating the measurement of the single parameter”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally or alternatively, the inventor’s argument that “The concept of not contaminating the measurement of the single parameter is not addressed by the prior art” is moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The inventor argues on pg. 4 that “it may be preferable to eliminate bending strains from the signal. Accordingly, I have found that the device of claim 1 to be beneficial, at least in part, based on the circumferential alignment of the abutments.” The inventor further argues that the abutment alignment is beneficial in the last paragraph of pg. 4.
The inventor’s argument is not persuasive. ¶50 discloses
“…The second type of bending can result from a force on the shaft that can appear stationary in the rotating reference frame and can appear to rotate in the stationary reference frame. The sensor 18 can detect this second type of bending as a constant error in the torque reading. Effects of the second type of bending can be removed by calibrating the sensor 18 at zero torque.”
The specification already describes eliminating the effect of bending strains on the signal by calibrating the sensor. There is no support in the original specification for eliminating bending strains from the signal by aligning the sides of the abutments, and there is no evidence that Applicant contemplated such a feature at the time of filing. Additionally, it would be impossible for the abutments to eliminate bending from the strain signal, unless aligning the sides of the abutments gives the shaft/sensor an essentially infinite stiffness with respect to bending forces, which would be impossible. If bending is applied to the shaft, then the strain sensor will detect it whether the sides of the abutments are aligned or not. Furthermore, the inventor’s argument that the claimed alignment is “beneficial” fails to articulate whether the alignment provides unexpected results.
As noted above, ¶51 discloses “the strain sensor 18 can be used to detect both torque and bending of the shaft 12, which can be useful in cost sensitive or volume constrained systems.” This means it may NOT be preferable to eliminate bending strains from the signal, because doing so would be detrimental in cost sensitive or volume constrained systems.
PNG
media_image8.png
440
450
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The inventor argues on pgs. 5-6 that the positions of the abutments affect the bending strains in the signal, citing the illustrations and formulas above. Specifically, the inventor states that when θa and θb are different for the abutments, then the bending strain will allegedly be different for each abutment, which allegedly makes it hard to extract normal strain from the signal.
The inventor’s argument is not persuasive.
[AltContent: textbox (B’)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A’)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image9.png
280
308
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The “A” and “B” locations of the inventor’s illustration correlate to the locations of the ends of the span in fig. 1, which are circumferentially offset from each other, and which are annotated as A’ and B’ in fig. 1 above, respectively. If different amounts of bending strain are introduced into the strain measurements, as argued by the inventor, then it would be a result of the span itself having misaligned ends, because θa and θb for the ends of the span are unequal. Furthermore, bending stresses enter the span at circumferentially offset points A’ and B’, whether the side faces of the abutments are aligned or not . Aligning the sides of the abutments would be unable to prevent/suppress bending stresses from entering these circumferentially offset points (A’, B’).
As previously discussed, the specification states that it is easy to determine torque even if there is bending (¶50-51), even though θa and θb are different for the ends of the span. This means the specification directly contradicts the inventor’s arguments.
Even if the inventor’s argument were persuasive, which the Examiner does not admit, the inventor still fails to provide persuasive evidence of unexpected results. If the inventor’s argument is correct, which the Examiner does not admit, it would be *expected* that bending strains would be equal when θa and θb are equal.
Accordingly, the inventor’s arguments are not persuasive and the inventor has failed to provide persuasive evidence of non-obviousness.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “I, as one of ordinary skill in the art, would further understand that the span being arranged at an angle, as recited in claim 29, provides at least an advantage in allowing for direct measuring of the strain and thus precise torque determination, as noted above. For example, paragraph [0051] states, "The strain signal can be averaged over a rotation of the shaft 12 to calculate an accurate torque of the shaft." As discussed above, this averaging of the strain signal to improve the accuracy of the torque determination is very effective when the strain gauge is arranged at an angle so as to only measure normal strain. Difficulty can occur in accurately determining the torque by averaging the strain signal when other forces, such as bending forces, are combined in the signal, as discussed above, which can be eliminated by the circumferential alignment of the abutments.”
The inventor’s argument is not persuasive, and directly contradicts the instant specification. ¶51 discloses
“If torque on the rotating shaft 12 is relatively constant within a rotation of the shaft, the bending and the torque of the shaft can be easily extracted from a strain signal measurement form the strain sensor 18. The strain signal can be averaged over a rotation of the shaft 12 to calculate an accurate torque of the shaft. Fluctuation of the strain signal in a cycle of the shaft 12 can be used to determine the bending of the shaft. Accordingly, the strain sensor 18 can be used to detect both torque and bending of the shaft 12, which can be useful in cost sensitive or volume constrained systems.”
This means that it is desirable to detect torque and bending forces at the same time, and that the torque can easily be extracted from the measurements even when there is bending. Accordingly, the inventor’s argument that it would be difficult to extract the torque from the signal without aligning the abutments to allegedly isolate the sensor from bending forces is not persuasive.
The inventor argues on pg. 6 that “Regarding claim 1, as well as claims 34-36, which recite the various manners in which the abutments are coupled to the connector or first and second collars, as noted in paragraph 5 of this Affidavit, arranging the abutments on a radially outermost portion of the connector or collars (i.e., increasing a distance from the central longitudinal axis A2 of the shaft 12) provides at least a benefit of increasing an amplification of the strain measured by the strain sensor 18. The specification states, " it can be advantageous to increase an offset of the strain sensor 18 from the central longitudinal axis A2 of the shaft, i.e., the distance rg such that amplification of the strain measured by the strain sensor can be increased." Paragraph [0044] of the published application. Accordingly, the recitations of these claims include features that are directed to this mechanical amplification of the strain measurements, which, for example, help to increase sensitivity the strain measurements and ultimately the accuracy of the torque determination, as well as helping to reduce noise in the strain measurement. See also, e.g., paragraphs [0034] and [0041] of the published application.”
The inventor’s arguments are not persuasive because nothing described by the inventor is an unexpected result. Accordingly, the inventor has failed to provide persuasive evidence of nonobviousness, and the 103 rejections are proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853