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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 D has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2-10 and 13-14 have been amended. Therefore claims 2-15 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of "wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been over-molded onto the annular washer body" in claim must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the 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.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 1, “the strain gauges” should read “the at least one strain gauge”
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 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.
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, the amended claim limitation in lines 10-12 of independent claims 4 and 9 of “wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been over-molded onto the annular washer body” and lines 7-9 of independent claim 14 of “over-molding a polymeric material onto the annular washer body such that at least one of the strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or the antenna is encapsulated together with the annular washer body within the material” appears to be directed to 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(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to Paragraph 0016 of Applicant’s originally filed specification, Applicant provides that “In another embodiment, one or more strain gauges 40, integrated circuit 44, or antenna 46 may be encapsulated in a polymeric material, resulting in a sealed arrangement that protects the electronic components of the washer 12 from the effects of vibration or impacts with other objects. In an exemplary embodiment, the polymeric material is over-molded onto the washer 12”. Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 4 and 9 of “wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been over-molded onto the annular washer body” and claim 14 of “over-molding a polymeric material onto the annular washer body such that at least one of the strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or the antenna is encapsulated together with the annular washer body within the material” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as recited in amended claims 4, 9, and 14. For the purpose of examination, claims 4, 9, and 14 will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 9, the amended claim limitation in lines 17-18 of “the protrusions sized and arranged to engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body” appears to be directed to 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(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to Paragraph 0020 of Applicant’s originally filed specification, Applicant provides that “The protrusions 90 may be symmetrically arranged around the inner circumference of the sidewall 92 and may be sized and configured to facilitate a sliding fit with the shank 16 of a bolt 14 received through the washer 12 when assembled in a bolted joint 10”. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 9 of “the protrusions sized and arranged to engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as recited in amended claim 9. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 will be examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickman et al. (DE102012020932A1), hereinafter "Bickman", in view Brandenburg, "Evaluation of Overmolded Electronic Assembly Packaging Using Thermoset and Thermoplastic Molding" (Non-Patent Document U cited in PTO-892 dated September 2, 2025), hereinafter "Brandenburg".
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Bickman teaches an instrumented load-sensing washer (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0049, Examiner notes force-measuring washer as an instrumented load-sensing washer), comprising:
an annular washer body (Fig 1, plate element 1) having first (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an upper surface of plate element 1, i.e. the upper surface in which force F is acting, as a first axial end) and second oppositely disposed axial ends (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a lower surface of plate element 1, i.e. the lower surface opposite from the upper surface, as a second oppositely disposed axial end) and an outer circumferential sidewall (Fig 1, surface 1b);
at least one strain gauge (Fig 1, strain sensor 6) on the sidewall (1b); and
a communication assembly (Fig 1, electronics 9) operatively coupled (Paragraphs 0052-0056) with the at least one strain gauge (6);
the communication assembly (9) including an integrated circuit adapted to receive electrical signals from the at least one strain gauge (6) related to an axial load (Fig 1, force F) borne by the washer (see Figs 1-3) (Paragraph 0031, Examiner notes electronics that serve to record and, if necessary, further evaluate measured values from the sensor system and thus from the at least one strain sensor on the outer peripheral surface of the plate element as including an integrated circuit adapted to receive electrical signals from the at least one strain gauge related to an axial load borne by the washer);
wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge (6), the integrated circuit (Paragraph 0031), or an antenna is encapsulated (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0044, Examiner notes covered with a hood as is encapsulated) in a material (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a material of hood 10 as a material) that has been **over-molded** onto the washer (see Figs 1-3).
Bickman fails to teach wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been **over-molded** onto the annular washer body.
However, Brandenburg teaches on Pg 25, Col 1, that it is known to provide overmolding technology to form a plastic package that encapsulates the entire product electronic assembly. More specifically, Brandenburg teaches that a populated PCB assembly can be adhesively bonded to a metal backplate and then overmolded to form the electronic enclosure.
Therefore, as evidenced by Brandenburg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hood of Bickman to include wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been **over-molded** onto the annular washer body. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate streamlining manufacturing processes, increase reliability, increase durability and provide superior thermal management (Brandenburg, Pg 25, Col 1).
**Examiner notes that even though a product-by-process claim is limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Bickman teaches a method of making an instrumented load-sensing washer (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0049, Examiner notes force-measuring washer as an instrumented load-sensing washer), the method comprising:
fixing (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0052) at least one strain gauge (Fig 1, strain sensor 6) to an outer circumferential surface (Fig 1, surface 1b) of an annular washer body (Fig 1, plate element 1);
operatively coupling at least one of an integrated circuit (Paragraph 0031, Examiner notes electronics that serve to record and, if necessary, further evaluate measured values from the sensor system and thus from the at least one strain sensor on the outer peripheral surface of the plate element as operatively coupling at least one of an integrated circuit) or an antenna with the at least one strain gauge (6).
Bickman fails to teach over-molding a polymeric material onto the annular washer body such that at least one of the strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or the antenna is encapsulated together with the annular washer body within the material.
However, Brandenburg teaches on Pg 25, Col 1, that it is known to provide overmolding technology to form a plastic package that encapsulates the entire product electronic assembly. More specifically, Brandenburg teaches that a populated PCB assembly can be adhesively bonded to a metal backplate and then overmolded to form the electronic enclosure.
Therefore, as evidenced by Brandenburg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hood of Bickman to include over-molding a polymeric material onto the annular washer body such that at least one of the strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or the antenna is encapsulated together with the annular washer body within the material. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate streamlining manufacturing processes, increase reliability, increase durability and provide superior thermal management (Brandenburg, Pg 25, Col 1).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickman, in view of Brandenburg and Briault et al. (FR2890442A1), hereinafter "Briault".
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Bickman teaches an instrumented load-sensing washer (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0049, Examiner notes force-measuring washer as an instrumented load-sensing washer), comprising:
an annular washer body (Fig 1, plate element 1) having first (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an upper surface of plate element 1, i.e. the upper surface in which force F is acting, as a first axial end) and second oppositely disposed axial ends (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a lower surface of plate element 1, i.e. the lower surface opposite from the upper surface, as a second oppositely disposed axial end) and an outer circumferential sidewall (Fig 1, surface 1b);
at least one strain gauge (Fig 1, strain sensor 6) on the sidewall (1b); and
a communication assembly (Fig 1, electronics 9) operatively coupled (Paragraphs 0052-0056) with the at least one strain gauge (6);
the communication assembly (9) including an integrated circuit adapted to receive electrical signals from the at least one strain gauge (6) related to an axial load (Fig 1, force F) borne by the washer (see Figs 1-3) (Paragraph 0031, Examiner notes electronics that serve to record and, if necessary, further evaluate measured values from the sensor system and thus from the at least one strain sensor on the outer peripheral surface of the plate element as including an integrated circuit adapted to receive electrical signals from the at least one strain gauge related to an axial load borne by the washer);
wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge (6), the integrated circuit (Paragraph 0031), or an antenna is encapsulated (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0044, Examiner notes covered with a hood as is encapsulated) in a material (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a material of hood 10 as a material) that has been **over-molded** onto the washer (see Figs 1-3);
wherein the washer body (1) includes an inner sidewall (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an inner surface of recess 2 as an inner sidewall).
Bickman fails to teach wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been **over-molded** onto the annular washer body; the washer body further comprising: a plurality of protrusions extending radially inwardly from the inner sidewall and defining axially extending channels therebetween, the protrusions sized and arranged to engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body.
However, Brandenburg teaches on Pg 25, Col 1, that it is known to provide overmolding technology to form a plastic package that encapsulates the entire product electronic assembly. More specifically, Brandenburg teaches that a populated PCB assembly can be adhesively bonded to a metal backplate and then overmolded to form the electronic enclosure.
Therefore, as evidenced by Brandenburg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hood of Bickman to include wherein at least one of the at least one strain gauge, the integrated circuit, or an antenna is encapsulated with the annular washer body in polymeric material that has been **over-molded** onto the annular washer body. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate streamlining manufacturing processes, increase reliability, increase durability and provide superior thermal management (Brandenburg, Pg 25, Col 1).
Bickman, in view of Brandenburg fails to teach the washer body further comprising: a plurality of protrusions extending radially inwardly from the inner sidewall and defining axially extending channels therebetween, the protrusions sized and arranged to engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body.
However, Briault teaches it is known to provide the washer body (Fig 2, structure 14) further comprising: a plurality of protrusions (Fig 2, islands 12) extending radially inwardly (see Figs 2-4) from the inner sidewall (Fig 4, face 18l) and defining axially extending channels (see Fig 2, Examiner notes channels between each island 12 as defining axially extending channels) therebetween; the protrusions (12) sized and arranged to engage (capable of engaging, i.e. this is a functional recitation), with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body (14).
Therefore, as evidenced by Briault, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized and shaped plurality of protrusions as taught by Briault to the washer body of modified Bickman such that the protrusions are sized and arranged to engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate knowing discretely and at precise points the tightening force exerted (Briault, Pg 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 but fails to teach wherein the communication assembly further comprises the antenna operatively coupled with the integrated circuit, and the integrated circuit is adapted to transmit wireless signals to a reader external of the washer via the antenna.
However, Bickman in Paragraphs 0040-0042, teaches it is known to provide wherein the communication assembly (Paragraphs 0040-0042, Examiner notes measuring electronics as the communication assembly) further comprises the antenna operatively coupled with the integrated circuit (Paragraphs 0040-0042, Examiner notes wireless communication interface, i.e. Bluetooth, as an antenna operatively coupled with the integrated circuit), and the integrated circuit (Paragraphs 0040-0042) is adapted to transmit wireless signals (capable of transmitting wireless signals, i.e. this is a functional recitation; Paragraphs 0040-0042) to a reader external (see Figs 1-3, Paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0055-0056) of the washer (see Figs 1-3, Paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0055-0056) via the antenna (Paragraphs 0040-0042).
Therefore, as evidenced by Bickman in Paragraphs 0040-0042, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication assembly of modified Bickman to further comprise an antenna as taught by Bickman in Paragraphs 0040-0042. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate ease of set up for monitoring, data collection, etc., e.g. reducing a need for and routing of cables.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 and further teaches comprising a support platform (Fig 1, carrier element 3) extending radially outwardly (see Figs 1-2) from the washer body (1), wherein at least one of the integrated circuit (Paragraph 0031) or the antenna are positioned (see Figs 1-2) on the support platform (3).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the strain gauges (6) are arranged symmetrically (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0027, Examiner notes at least one strain sensor arranged on the outer circumferential surface is arranged opposite the support element and between the webs, preferably centrally between the webs as arranged symmetrically) around the circumferential sidewall (1b).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 but fails to teach wherein the washer body further comprises a raised contact area extending axially from at least one of the first or second ends.
However, Briault teaches it is known to provide wherein the washer body (Fig 2, structure 14) further comprises a raised contact area (Fig 2, islands 12) extending (see Figs 2-4) axially from at least one of the first (Fig 3, lower face 16) or second ends (Fig 3, upper face 17).
Therefore, as evidenced by Briault, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the washer body of modified Bickman to comprise an adequately sized and shaped raised contact area extending axially from at least one of the first or second ends as taught by Briault. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate knowing discretely and at precise points the tightening force exerted (Briault, Pg 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 and further teaches comprising:
a protective cover (Fig 3, hood 10) received over (see Fig 3) the outer circumferential sidewall (1b) and enclosing (see Fig 3) the at least one strain gauge (6) between the cover (10) and the outer circumferential sidewall (1b).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein the protective cover (10) comprises a first cover section (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a section of hood 10 extending parallel to carrier element 3, i.e. the section housing light-emitting diodes 7, as a first cover section) proximate (see Figs 1-3) the communication assembly (9), and a second cover section (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a tapered section of hood 10, i.e. the tapered section hood 10 adjacent plate element 1, as a second cover section) enclosing (see Figs 1-3) the at least one strain gauge (6).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein:
the washer body (1) further comprises a first radially outwardly extending flange (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an upper web 4, i.e. the upper web adjacent force F, as a first radially outwardly extending flange) proximate (see Fig 1) the first end (see Fig 1), and a second radially outwardly extending flange (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a lower web 4, i.e. the lower web distal from force F, as a second radially outwardly extending flange) proximate the second end (see Fig 1); and
the protective cover (10) is attached (see Figs 1-3) to the washer body (1) at the first (see Fig 1) and second flanges (see Fig 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickman, in view of Brandenburg, Briault, and Hashimoto et al. (US20170003118A1), hereinafter "Hashimoto".
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 but fails to teach wherein the at least one strain gauge comprises at least four strain gauges on the circumferential sidewall.
However, Hashimoto teaches it is known to provide wherein the at least one strain gauge (Fig 2, strain sensor pairs GP) comprises at least four strain gauges (Paragraphs 0018 and 0020, Hashimoto indicates four strain sensor pairs GP) on the circumferential sidewall (Fig 2, surface 11s).
Therefore, as evidenced by Hashimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one strain gauge of modified Bickman to comprise at least four strain gauges on the circumferential sidewall as taught by Hashimoto. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate increasing measurement accuracy based on application and requirements, i.e. providing compressive and tensile strain sensors to detect compressive and tensile strain, respectively, in the body (Hashimoto, Paragraph 0020).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickman, in view of Brandenburg, Briault, and St. Germain et al. (US20170109996A1), hereinafter "St. Germain".
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the washer (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 but fails to teach wherein the at least one strain gauge is configured as a Wheatstone bridge and/or has an operating resistance range of 15 kiloohms to 23 kiloohms.
However, St. Germain teaches it is known to provide wherein the at least one strain gauge (Fig 3, strain gauge 18) is configured as a Wheatstone bridge (Paragraph 0035, St. Germain indicates a Wheatstone Bridge configuration) and/or has an operating resistance range of 15 kiloohms to 23 kiloohms.
Therefore, as evidenced by St. Germain, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one strain gauge of modified Bickman to be configured as a Wheatstone bridge as taught by St. Germain. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a well-known electrical circuit to accurately measure resistance.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickman, in view of Brandenburg, Briault, and Bromley (US20190226886A1), hereinafter "Bromley".
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches a method for determining a load in a bolted joint (Paragraph 0001, Examiner notes a method for measuring the force acting on a plate element perpendicular to the plate surfaces as a method for determining a load in a bolted joint), the method (Paragraph 0001) comprising:
obtaining a bolted joint (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0049, Examiner notes inner recess 2 which serves to guide a screw through the recess 2 as is known from conventional washers as obtaining a bolted joint) including an instrumented load-sensing washer (see Figs 1-3) as set forth in claim 9 (see claim 9) but fails to teach
powering the integrated circuit of the washer with a wireless, reader device;
querying the integrated circuit of the washer with the reader device; and
displaying and/or storing information on the reader device related to an axial force borne by the washer in the bolted joint.
However, Bromley teaches it is known to provide powering (Paragraph 0097) the integrated circuit (Fig 4, control unit 142) of the washer (Fig 3, washer 100) with a wireless, reader device (Fig 4, reader 200); querying (Paragraphs 0097-0098) the integrated circuit (142) of the washer (100) with the reader device (200); and displaying and/or storing information (Paragraph 0097-0098) on the reader device (200) related to an axial force (Paragraph 0076, Examiner notes clamp-force as an axial force) borne by the washer (100) in the bolted joint (see Figs 2-3, Paragraphs 0076 and 0089).
Therefore, as evidenced by Bromley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine powering the integrated circuit of the washer with a wireless, reader device; querying the integrated circuit of the washer with the reader device; and displaying and/or storing information on the reader device related to an axial force borne by the washer in the bolted joint as taught by Bromley to modified Bickman. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate wirelessly communicating data resulting in safe distance operation (Bromley, Paragraph 0082).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickman, in view of Brandenburg and Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, modified Bickman teaches the method of claim 14 but fails to teach further comprising:
securing a cover on the washer body such that the at least one strain gauge is enclosed within a space defined between the outer circumferential surface and the cover.
However, Hashimoto teaches it is known to provide securing (see Figs 1-2, Paragraph 0026, Examiner notes the cover 3 is fitted to the base 2 as securing) a cover (Fig 2, cover 3) on the washer body (Fig 2, sensor 1) such that the at least one strain gauge (Fig 2, strain sensor pairs GP) is enclosed within a space (see Figs 1-2, Examiner notes a distance between surface 11s and peripheral wall 31w as is enclosed within a space) defined between the outer circumferential surface (Fig 2, surface 11s) and the cover (3).
Therefore, as evidenced by Hashimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped cover as taught by Hashimoto to modified Bickman. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate mitigating exposure of the outer peripheral surface of the plate element to external factors, e.g. preventing inadvertent damage to the outer peripheral surface of the plate element resulting in inaccurate measurements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4, 9, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to claim 9 on Pg 10 of Applicant’s Remarks filed December 2, 2025, Applicant argues that “the device of Briault ‘442 is not configured to receive a fastener of a bolted joint through the center of the ring structure such that the inner radial faces 201 would engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the combination of Bickman, Brandenburg, and Briault, as set forth above, would result in a combination that is capable of engaging with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body. Further, as set forth above, claim 9 recites “the protrusions sized and arranged to engage, with a sliding fit, a shank of a fastener of a bolted joint received through the annular washer body” which appears to be directed to 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(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, Paragraph 0020 of Applicant’s originally filed specification merely provides “sized and configured to facilitate a sliding fit” and does not appear to be described in the specification as “sized and arranged to engage”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675