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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3b contains a stray marking (near reference 10). Each sheet must be reasonably free from erasures and must be free from alterations, overwritings, and interlineations. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(e).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s recently issued patents US 12,151,344 B2, titled “POWER TOOL ATTACHMENT PART”; and US 12,576,488 B2, titled “POWER TOOL ATTACHMENT PART”; and copending application 19/049,478, titled “POWER TOOL ATTACHMENT PART”, all of which have claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application are sufficiently delineated from those of the issued patents and the copending application and are patentably distinct. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending application be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending application or the issued patents. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H0740261 A (“Mizuhara”) (citations are to the translation filed 03/28/2025).
Mizuhara
Regarding claim 1, Mizuhara discloses a power tool attachment part for a power tool, comprising (Figs. 7-9, power tool attachment part as shown):
an elongated housing including an upper housing part and a lower housing part interconnected with the upper housing part (Figs. 7-9, housing includes upper housing part 24 interconnected with lower housing part 23);
an input gear wheel for connection to an output shaft of a power wrench, which input gear wheel is arranged at a first end of the housing (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, input gear wheel 7 for connection to an output shaft of a power wrench, located at a first end of the housing as shown; Examiner notes that the “output shaft of a power wrench” is not positively claimed);
an output gear wheel with an output connection, which output gear wheel is arranged at a second end of the housing (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, output gear wheel 3 with hexagonal output connection located at a second end of the housing as shown);
at least one intermediate gear wheel, which is arranged inside the housing to transmit the rotation of the input gear wheel to the output gear wheel (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, intermediate gear wheels 4, 5, 6, arranged to transmit the rotation of input gear wheel 7 to output gear wheel 3);
and at least one torque sensor arranged on the elongated housing, said at least one torque sensor being positioned and configured to measure a contraction and/or extraction along a longitudinal length of the elongated housing caused by forces applied to the housing due to output torque at the output gear wheel, where the measured contraction and/or extraction indicates a torque of the output gear wheel (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, 0031, strain gauges 55 (“torque sensors”) on upper housing part 24 and lower housing part 23 measure the contraction (due to compression) and/or extraction (due to tension) along the longitudinal length of the housing (see Fig. 9, portions 48 and 54 of the housing are along its longitudinal length (i.e., along the axes of the wheels 3-7)) caused by forces applied to the housing due to the output torque at the output gear wheel 3, where the contraction and/or extraction measured by the strain gauges 55 indicate the torque of the output gear wheel 3 (note that in Fig. 9, one strain gauge 55 shown (closer to reference 4) experiences tension while the other strain gauge 55 shown experiences compression in the loaded state (see Fig. 3); Examiner notes that Applicant’s use of the phrase “an extraction” means an elongation, tension, or extension (i.e., the opposite of “contract”) (Spec. ¶ 0038), even though the normal use of the term “extraction” in the English language does not include such a definition. If Applicant intends for the term “extraction” to mean something else, Applicant should clearly state so in a response to this Office Action).
Regarding claim 2, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one torque sensor is arranged on said elongate housing adjacent to a location of the at least one intermediate gear wheel (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and the lower housing part 23 at a location adjacent to intermediate gear wheel 4).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is arranged on the lower housing part (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and the lower housing part 23).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is arranged on the upper housing part (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and the lower housing part 23).
Regarding claim 5, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is arranged on the elongated housing at one side of the one of the at least one intermediate gear wheels being adjacent the output gear wheel (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and are located at one side (e.g., the top side) of the intermediate gear wheel 4 (or strain gauges 55 are on the lower housing part 23 and are located at one side (e.g., the bottom side) of the intermediate gear wheel 4), the intermediate gear wheel 4 being adjacent output gear wheel 3).
Regarding claim 9, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a strain gauge element (¶¶ 0026, 0031-0032, strain gauges 55).
Regarding claim 11, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one torque sensor is arranged adjacent to the output gear wheel (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and are located adjacent to the output gear wheel 3 (or strain gauges 55 are on the lower housing part 23 and are located adjacent to the output gear wheel 3)).
Regarding claim 12, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein said at least one torque sensor is configured to measure a deformation of the elongated housing caused by forces applied to the housing by the at least one intermediate gear wheel, when the at least one intermediate gear wheel is moved in reaction to output torque at the output gear wheel (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, strain gauges 55 (“torque sensors”) on upper housing part 24 and lower housing part 23 measure the deformation of the housing (see Fig. 9, portions 48 and 54 of the housing) caused by forces applied to the housing by intermediate gear wheel 4, when intermediate gear wheel 4 is moved in reaction to output torque at the output gear wheel 3).
Regarding claim 13, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein said at least one torque sensor is configured to measure a deformation of the elongated housing caused by forces applied to the housing by the at least one intermediate gear wheel, when the at least one intermediate gear wheel is pushed sideways in reaction to output torque at the output gear wheel (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, strain gauges 55 (“torque sensors”) on upper housing part 24 and lower housing part 23 measure the deformation of the housing (see Fig. 9, portions 48 and 54 of the housing) caused by forces applied to the housing by intermediate gear wheel 4, when intermediate gear wheel 4 is pushed sideways in reaction to output torque at the output gear wheel 3).
Regarding claim 14, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one torque sensors comprises first and second torque sensors respectively arranged on the elongated housing on opposite sides of the at least one intermediate gear wheel (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and are located on opposite sides of the intermediate gear wheel 4 relative to the centerline of the device that intersects the axes of rotation of the intermediate wheels 4/5/6 (or strain gauges 55 are on the lower housing part 23 and arranged similarly),
such that when forces are applied to the elongated housing due to output torque at the output gear wheel, the first torque sensor measures a contraction of a side of the elongated housing to which the first sensor is connected and the second torque sensor measures an extraction of an opposite side of the elongated housing to which the second sensor is connected (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, e.g., one of the strain gauges 55 on upper housing part 24 is compressed and the other of the strain gauges 55 (closer to reference 4 in Fig. 9) on upper housing part 24 is tensioned due to the movement of the intermediate gear wheel 4 due to output torque at the output gear wheel 3 (and the same applies to strain gauges 55 on the lower housing part 23); Examiner notes that Applicant’s use of the phrase “an extraction” means an elongation, tension, or extension (i.e., the opposite of “contract”) (Spec. ¶ 0038), even though the normal use of the term “extraction” in the English language does not include such a definition. If Applicant intends for the term “extraction” to mean something else, Applicant should clearly state so in a response to this Office Action).
Regarding claim 15, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 14 as applied above and further discloses wherein the first and second sensors are both located in one of: the upper housing part, or the lower housing part (Figs. 7-9, the first and second strain gauges 55 are both on the upper housing part 24 (or alternatively, the first and second strain gauges 55 are both on the lower housing part 23)).
Regarding claim 16, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one torque sensors comprises first and second torque sensors respectively arranged on the elongated housing on opposite sides of the at least one intermediate gear wheel (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the upper housing part 24 and are located on opposite sides of the intermediate gear wheel 4 relative to the centerline of the device that intersects the axes of rotation of the intermediate wheels 4/5/6 (or strain gauges 55 are on the lower housing part 23 and arranged similarly),
such that when forces are applied to the elongated housing by the at least one intermediate gear being moved due to output torque at the output gear wheel, the first torque sensor measures a contraction of a side of the elongated housing to which the first sensor is connected associated with movement of the at least one intermediate gear and the second torque sensor measures an extraction of an opposite side of the elongated housing to which the second sensor is connected associated with movement of the at least one intermediate gear (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0023-0026, e.g., one of the strain gauges 55 on upper housing part 24 is compressed and the other of the strain gauges (closer to reference 4 in Fig. 9) on upper housing part 24 is tensioned due to the movement of the intermediate gear wheel 4 due to output torque at the output gear wheel 3; Examiner notes that Applicant’s use of the phrase “an extraction” means an elongation, tension, or extension (i.e., the opposite of “contract”) (Spec. ¶ 0038), even though the normal use of the term “extraction” in the English language does not include such a definition. If Applicant intends for the term “extraction” to mean something else, Applicant should clearly state so in a response to this Office Action).
Regarding claim 18 (pertaining to limitations from claim 1 using a different embodiment than that used for the rejection of claim 1 above):
Mizuhara discloses a power tool attachment part for a power tool, comprising (Figs. 4-6, power tool attachment part as shown):
an elongated housing including an upper housing part and a lower housing part interconnected with the upper housing part (Figs. 4-6, housing includes upper housing part 22 interconnected with lower housing part 21);
an input gear wheel for connection to an output shaft of a power wrench, which input gear wheel is arranged at a first end of the housing (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0017-0021, input gear wheel 7 for connection to an output shaft of a power wrench, located at a first end of the housing as shown; Examiner notes that the “output shaft of a power wrench” is not positively claimed);
an output gear wheel with an output connection, which output gear wheel is arranged at a second end of the housing (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0017-0021, output gear wheel 3 with hexagonal output connection located at a second end of the housing as shown);
at least one intermediate gear wheel, which is arranged inside the housing to transmit the rotation of the input gear wheel to the output gear wheel (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0017-0021, intermediate gear wheels 4, 5, 6, arranged to transmit the rotation of input gear wheel 7 to output gear wheel 3);
and at least one torque sensor arranged on the elongated housing, said at least one torque sensor being positioned and configured to measure a contraction and/or extraction along a longitudinal length of the elongated housing caused by forces applied to the housing due to output torque at the output gear wheel, where the measured contraction and/or extraction indicates a torque of the output gear wheel (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0017-0021, strain gauges 34 and 35 (“torque sensors”) on the sides of lower housing part 21 measure the contraction (due to compression) and/or extraction (due to tension) along the longitudinal length of the housing (see Fig. 6) caused by forces applied to the housing due to the output torque at the output gear wheel 3, where the contraction and/or extraction measured by the strain gauges 34, 35 indicate the torque of the output gear wheel 3 (note that in Fig. 6, strain gauges 35 experiences tension while strain gauges 34 experiences compression in the loaded state (see Fig. 3); Examiner notes that Applicant’s use of the phrase “an extraction” means an elongation, tension, or extension (i.e., the opposite of “contract”) (Spec. ¶ 0038), even though the normal use of the term “extraction” in the English language does not include such a definition. If Applicant intends for the term “extraction” to mean something else, Applicant should clearly state so in a response to this Office Action).
Regarding claim 18 (pertaining to limitations from claim 18):
Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one torque sensor is positioned and configured to measure a contraction and/or extraction at a lateral sidewall of the elongated housing caused by forces applied to the housing due to output torque at the output gear wheel (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0017-0021, strain gauges 34 and 35 (“torque sensors”) on the sides of lower housing part 21 measure the contraction (due to compression) and/or extraction (due to tension) at the lateral sidewall of the lower housing part 21 (see Fig. 6) caused by forces applied to the housing due to the output torque at the output gear wheel 3, where the contraction and/or extraction measured by the strain gauges 34, 35 indicate the torque of the output gear wheel 3 (note that in Fig. 6, strain gauges 35 experiences tension while strain gauges 34 experiences compression in the loaded state (see Fig. 3); Examiner notes that Applicant’s use of the phrase “an extraction” means an elongation, tension, or extension (i.e., the opposite of “contract”) (Spec. ¶ 0038), even though the normal use of the term “extraction” in the English language does not include such a definition. If Applicant intends for the term “extraction” to mean something else, Applicant should clearly state so in a response to this Office Action).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Mizuhara in view of Hu
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP H0740261 A (“Mizuhara”) (citations are to the translation filed 03/28/2025) in view of US 20200171631 A1 (“Hu”).
Mizuhara pertains to a driving tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.; Figs. 7-10). Hu pertains to a wrench tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 6, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above. Mizuhara does not explicitly disclose an electronic box arranged on the elongated housing, the electronic box being configured to receive measurements from the at least one torque sensor. However, the Mizuhara/Hu combination makes obvious this claim.
Hu discloses an electronic box arranged on the elongated housing (Figs. 1, 3, 5, element 52 and controller 20), the electronic box being configured to receive measurements from the at least one torque sensor (¶ 0036, “The indicator 52 is electrically connected with the torque sensor 51 for indicating the torque value of the manually output torque detected by the torque sensor 51. The indicator 52 is able to indicate the value through a light signal or numbers, allowing the user to conveniently observe the torque during operation.”; ¶ 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Hu with Mizuhara to add an electronic box, including an indicator, to the housing so that the user can readily observe the torque value and take appropriate action (Hu ¶ 0017, “the torque sensing device further comprises an indicator electrically connected with the torque sensor and disposed between the handle portion and the connection portion of the main body; the indicator is configured to indicate the value of the manually output torque detected by the torque sensor. Thus, the user knows the currently applied torque in the manual mode, and is prevented from imposing an excessive torque which may cause damages on the fastener or the to-be-fastened object.”). Further, Mizuhara contemplates attaching an electronic device with a display to provide the same functionality (Mizuhara ¶¶ 0026, 0029, 0032).
Regarding claim 8, the Mizuhara/Hu combination makes obvious the power tool attachment part of claim 6, as applied above. Hu further discloses wherein the electronic box is configured to display a torque value measured by the at least one torque sensor (Hu ¶ 0017, “the torque sensing device further comprises an indicator electrically connected with the torque sensor and disposed between the handle portion and the connection portion of the main body; the indicator is configured to indicate the value of the manually output torque detected by the torque sensor. Thus, the user knows the currently applied torque in the manual mode, and is prevented from imposing an excessive torque which may cause damages on the fastener or the to-be-fastened object.”; ¶ 0036).
The obvious rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 6.
Mizuhara in view of Hu and Liang
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP H0740261 A (“Mizuhara”) (citations are to the translation filed 03/28/2025) in view of US 20200171631 A1 (“Hu”) and US 20170097269 A1 (“Liang”).
Mizuhara pertains to a driving tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.; Figs. 7-10). Hu pertains to a wrench tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Liang pertains to a driving tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, the Mizuhara/Hu combination makes obvious the power tool attachment part of claim 6, as applied above. Mizuhara and Hu do not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic box is connectable to drive electronics of a power tool to which the power tool attachment part is configured to be connected to during use. However, the Mizuhara/Hu/Liang combination makes obvious this claim.
Liang discloses wherein the electronic box is connectable to drive electronics of a power tool to which the power tool attachment part is configured to be connected to during use (Figs. 7a-b, 17-19; ¶¶ 0110-0111, microcontroller (MCU) 91c of a power tool attachment part 1 is connected to a drive tool to stop rotation if the measured torque exceeds a predetermined torque).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Liang with the Mizuhara/Hu combination to modify the “electronic box” of Hu (Hu Figs. 1, 3, 5, element 52 and controller 20) of the Mizuhara/Hu combination to add the MCU disclosed in Liang. Liang does not disclose the exact location of the MCU, but discloses that the MCU could be “built-in or installed outside” to perform the functions discussed above, and also discloses that the strain gauges are connectable to the MCU, which are connectable to control the rotation of the tool (Figs. 7a-b, 19; ¶¶ 0110-0111). Hu teaches that its “electronic box” is able to control the rotation of the integrated tool based on the torque measurement from the torque sensors (Hu Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0047, 0048). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because having the power tool attachment part automatically stop the rotation of the connected drive tool is a desirable feature to prevent over-torquing of the target bolt and causing damage (Hu ¶ 0052, “During screwing operation of the fastener, the motor 32 is able to be stopped manually or automatically stop. During the screwing process, when the rotating manually output torque reaches the threshold torque value, the controller 20 controls the motor 32 to operate, and the clutch device 60 emits the indicative sound and vibration. Thus, the user is prevented from imposing an excessive torque which may cause damages on the fastener or the to-be-fastened object.”).
Mizuhara in view of Saccomanno
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP H0740261 A (“Mizuhara”) (citations are to the translation filed 03/28/2025) in view of US 6109150 A (“Saccomanno”).
Mizuhara pertains to a driving tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.; Figs. 7-10). Saccomanno pertains to a ratcheting wrench tool with a torque sensor (Abstr.). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above. Mizuhara does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one sensor is a piezo electric element. However, the Mizuhara/Saccomanno combination makes obvious this claim.
Saccomanno discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a piezo electric element (7:62-8:3, “various types of strain gauges such as resistance strain gauges, electromagnetic strain gauges, variable capacitance strain gauges, and piezoelectric strain gauges...that are well know[n] to those skilled in the art, may be used to transduce and/or indicate torque-induced deflection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Saccomanno with Mizuhara to use a piezoelectric type of strain gauge in place of the Mizuhara strain gauge (Mizuhara is silent on the type of strain gauge) because it is well known in the art and is a simple substitution of a different type of strain gauge that would yield a similar, predictable result (a strain measurement).
Mizuhara
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP H0740261 A (“Mizuhara”) (citations are to the translation filed 03/28/2025).
Regarding claim 17, Mizuhara discloses the power tool attachment part of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the at least one torque sensors comprises:
first and second torque sensors respectively arranged on the elongated housing on opposite sides of the at least one intermediate gear wheel (Figs. 7-9, strain gauges 55 are on the lower housing part 23 and are located on opposite sides of the intermediate gear wheel 4 relative to the centerline of the device that intersects the axes of rotation of the intermediate wheels 4/5/6);
a third torque sensor arranged on a side of the upper housing part of the elongated housing (Figs. 7-9, one of strain gauges 55 is located on a side of the upper housing part 24 (i.e., on the top side and/or on the side of the upper housing part 24 relative to the centerline of the device that intersects the axes of rotation of the intermediate wheels 4/5/6);
and a fourth torque sensor arranged on the upper housing part of the elongated housing... (Figs. 7-9, the other one of strain gauges 55 is located on the upper housing part 24).
In the embodiment of Figs. 7-9, Mizuhara does not explicitly disclose a fourth torque sensor arranged on the upper housing part of the elongated housing between the output gear wheel and the intermediate gear wheel. However, Mizuhara makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to add or modify the placement of one or more of strain gauges 55, to locate one or more of strain gauges 55 on the upper housing part 24 to a location between the output gear wheel and the intermediate gear wheel (e.g., on the left side of part 54 in Fig. 9 (which currently shows two strain gauges 55 on the right side of part 54)). Examiner notes that Mizuhara discloses at least one embodiment where one or more of the strain gauges are located between the output gear wheel and the intermediate gear wheel (Figs. 4-6, strain gauges 34, 35). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice of where to locate the strain gauges 55 (and how many to use). When under torque, part 54 deforms (see Fig. 9), and a strain gauge located on the left side of part 54 would be able to detect deformation of part 54 in a similar way as the strain gauges 55 that are located currently on the right side of part 54. Additionally, the use of extra strain sensors in different locations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the use of additional sensors gives the advantage of a more accurate and reliable measurement, especially if one of the sensors is out of calibration (e.g., the strain values from one or more of the strain gauges could be ignored when processing the torque value if the strain values are outside an expected range). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to having a strain gauge specifically arranged on the upper housing part between the output gear wheel and the intermediate gear wheel, nor disclosed that this arrangement solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this strain gauge arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Drawings – The quality of Applicant’s replacement drawings is acceptable (of the DRW.SUPP file) and properly addresses the previous objection. However, the drawings are objected to due to a stray marking (see objection above).
Specification – The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, see new objection to the abstract.
Claims – Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention (Reply at 10-13) relies on limitations that are not recited in the rejected claims. Specifically, claim 1 only requires the torque sensor to be “positioned and configured to measure a contraction and/or extraction along a longitudinal length of the elongated housing caused by forces applied to the housing due to output torque at the output gear wheel”. As presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, the strain gauges 55 located on portions 54 and 48 of the upper housing part 24 and lower housing part 23, respectively, are positioned and configured to measure a contraction and/or extraction along a longitudinal length of the elongated housing for the simple reason that portions 54 and 48 are part of the elongated housing. The fact that these portions 54 and 48 are partially separated from the remainder of the elongated housing by slits does not change the fact that they are part of the elongated housing and the strain gauges 55 located therein are capable of the recited function. In Mizuhara Fig. 9, one strain gauge 55 shown (closer to reference 4) experiences tension along the longitudinal length of the elongated housing while the other strain gauge 55 shown experiences compression along the longitudinal length of the elongated housing in the loaded state. Applicant appears to be arguing non-recited limitations imported into claim 1 (Reply at 12, “there is no contraction or extraction of the side walls of the elongate housing.”). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP § 2145(VI).
Applicant’s arguments regarding (Reply at 13) new claim 18 are unpersuasive based on the rejection above for claim 18.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: June 21, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights