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 .
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 1-11 are 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 was amended to recite wherein the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is “not regulated.” ¶48 discloses “the protrusion 133B of the regulator 133 is accommodated in the groove 111C provided with the counter-face portion 111D facing the protrusion 133B with a gap between the protrusion 133B and the side wall 111Cc. Accordingly, the movement of the force sensor device 100 can be regulated…” Accordingly, in the disclosure, the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is indeed regulated. Therefore, claim 1 contains new matter.
Claims 2-10 contain new matter for depending from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the groove is open ended at one end in the circumferential direction of the groove so that the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated at the one end…” However, despite the groove being open at the one end, the movement of the protrusion at the one end is still regulated by at least the stiffness of the joining part 113 and flexible beam portions 114, which resist rotation and regulate the motion of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove at the one end. Therefore, claim 1 contains new matter.
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 1-11 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 was amended to recite wherein the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is “not regulated.” ¶48 discloses “the protrusion 133B of the regulator 133 is accommodated in the groove 111C provided with the counter-face portion 111D facing the protrusion 133B with a gap between the protrusion 133B and the side wall 111Cc. Accordingly, the movement of the force sensor device 100 can be regulated…” Accordingly, since the motion of the disclosed protrusion is regulated by at least wall 111Cc of the groove, it is unclear how the motion of the claimed protrusion is not regulated in the groove.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the claim includes an interpretation in which the protrusion is capable of being moved within the groove without contacting a sidewall of the groove.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the groove is open ended at one end in the circumferential direction of the groove so that the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated at the one end…” However, despite the groove being open at the one end, the movement of the protrusion at the one end is still regulated by at least the stiffness of the joining part 113 and flexible beam portions 114, which resist rotation and regulate the motion of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove at the one end. Therefore, it is unclear how the movement of the protrusion is not regulated at the one end, as claimed.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the claim includes an interpretation in which the protrusion can be moved at the open end of the groove without contacting a sidewall of the groove.
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) 1-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieding et al. (US 20040159165 A1, hereinafter Neiding) in view of LV (CN 209945593 U).
As to claim 1, Nieding teaches a force sensor device comprising:
a strain generator 9’, 9-11, B (figs. 1-3) including a first fixed part 9, 9’, 11 secured to a portion 1 transmitting rotational driving force, a second fixed part 10 secured to the portion 14 (fig. 1) to which the driving force is transmitted, and a joining part B that joins the first fixed part to the second fixed part; and
a strain detecting sensor D that detects deformation in the joining part of the strain generator (¶26),
wherein the first fixed part and the second fixed part are centered on a rotation axis (of steering wheel module 1 and/or shaft 14),
wherein the first fixed part is disposed outside the second fixed part across the joining part,
[AltContent: textbox (X1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (R)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2)]
PNG
media_image1.png
580
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the force sensor device further includes a support member A provided with a base X1 (proximal part of support member A directly attached to the second fixed part 10 - see fig. 2 above) secured to the second fixed part,
wherein the support member includes a regulator R (fig. 2 above) extending from the base,
wherein the support member is provided with a protrusion P (fig. 2 above) at an outer circumferential edge of the regulator,
wherein, in a support part W.sub.1, V (figs. 2-3) that is a partially raised portion (raised with respect to element 9’) of the first fixed part and extends in a rotation direction (see fig. 2), a groove (where an edge of a radially extending wall of bulge W.sub.1 meets projection V) is formed by cutting the support part from an inner surface in a radial direction toward an outer surface in the radial direction (the groove is capable of being made in the claimed manner),
wherein the protrusion of the support member is inserted into the groove (see figs. 2-3 and ¶35-36), and
wherein the groove opens in a circumferential direction around the rotation axis (the groove as defined above opens substantially in a circumferential direction about the rotation axis) so that the protrusion is allowed to move in the circumferential direction (via the “play” detailed in paras. 18 and 32).
Nieding does not teach wherein movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated.
[AltContent: textbox (5X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
538
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LV teaches a torque sensor (¶2 and ¶13) with bidirectional overload protection (title; ¶23), comprising a sensor body 1, wherein rotational motion in both circumferential directions is limited by a plurality of inner portions 5 (having protrusions 5X – fig 2 above) and outer portions 3 separated from each other by gaps 4, wherein ones of the outer portions 3 limit circumferential motion of the protrusions 5X in one circumferential direction, and wherein other ones of the outer portions 3 limit circumferential motion of the protrusions 5X in the other circumferential direction (due to the outer portions 3 each having a recess/groove that is open on one side or another side – fig. 2; also see ¶23).
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 Nieding such that each of the recesses/grooves (corresponding with the “limit stop gap” in ¶28 of Nieding) is open on one or another side in the circumferential direction as taught by LV since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing bidirectional rotation limiting for another for the predictable result that overloading is still successfully prevented.
Nieding as modified teaches wherein movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 2, Nieding teaches wherein a vertical width of the groove is the same (substantially the same – see fig. 3, which shows the vertical width of bulge W.sub.1) as a vertical width of the protrusion of the support member (the Examiner notes that instant fig. 4 shows that groove 111C is vertically wider than the protrusion 133B).
As to claim 3, Nieding as modified teaches wherein the groove opens in a rotation direction (in view of LV), and
wherein a gap is provided between the protrusion and a side wall (of bulge W.sub.1 in Nieding) of the groove.
As to claim 10, Nieding teaches wherein the strain generator is provided with a through hole at a center of the strain generator (figs. 1-2), and
wherein wiring is inserted into the through hole at the center of the strain generator (wiring is capable of being inserted into the through hole as claimed).
As to claim 11, Nieding teaches wherein the groove is open ended at one end in the circumferential direction of the groove so that the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated at the one end (in light of LV) and is closed ended at the other end (due to the presence of bulge W.sub.1 of Nieding) in the circumferential direction of the groove so that the movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is regulated at the other end (paras. 18 and 32 in Nieding).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieding in view of LV as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bradford (US 20170205296 A1).
As to claim 4, Nieding teaches wherein the regulator is provided with a flat plate part (the support member A is substantially flat and plate-like; accordingly, the flat plate part can be considered the central portion of the support member along its length, as broadly recited).
Nieding does not explicitly teach a flexible board stuck on a surface of the joining part, the flexible board having a shape that is the same as a shape of the joining part,
wherein the strain detecting sensor is implemented on the flexible board,
and
wherein the flexible board is provided between the flat plate part of the support member and the joining part.
Bradford teaches a torque sensor (title) wherein there is a flexible board 26 (fig. 7) stuck (with adhesive - ¶44) on a surface of the joining part 16, the flexible board having a shape (a shape at the jointing part) that is the same (substantially the same) as a shape of the joining part (see fig. 7),
wherein strain detecting sensors 1-6 are implemented on the flexible board (Bradford teaches that the flexible board is provided on a flat surface of the strain generator; when the teachings of Bradford are applied to Nieding, each flat surface of the strain generator bearing a strain sensor would have a flexible board supporting the strain sensor, meaning that the prior art flexible board would be provided between the flat plate part of the support member and the joining part).
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 Nieding such that strain sensors are each implemented on a flexible board stuck on a surface of the joining part, the flexible board having a shape that is the same as a shape of the joining part, as taught by Bradford, since such modifications would each be a simple substitution of one method of attaching a strain sensor for another for the predictable result that torque sensing is still successfully carried out.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieding in view of LV as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kobayashi (JP 2013231646 A).
As to claim 5, Nieding teaches wherein the joining part is thinner than the first fixed part and the second fixed part (fig. 2).
Nieding does not teach wherein the strain generator is formed of a resin material, and
wherein the support member A is formed of a metal material or a resin material with rigidity that is higher than rigidity of the strain generator.
Kobayashi teaches a torque sensor with strain generator made of resin (¶32).
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 Nieding such that the strain generator is made of a resin material as taught by Kobayashi since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one strain generator material for another for the predictable result that torque sensing is still successfully carried out.
Nieding as modified teaches wherein the support member A (Nieding) is formed of a resin material (¶16 and ¶23 of Nieding teach that spokes A-B are spokes of wheel 8; accordingly, when the strain generator of Nieding is modified to be made of resin, the spokes A would similarly also be made of resin) with rigidity that is higher than rigidity of the strain generator (e.g. a rigidity of the strain generator at a beam B; the torsional rigidity of the strain generator is defined by flexible beams B of Nieding; Nieding’s spokes A are motion limiters as taught by ¶28 and are significantly thicker than beams B; accordingly, the rigidity of the resin material forming the support member A is higher than the torsional rigidity of the strain generator at a beam B).
If Applicant argues that the prior art joining part is not thinner than the first fixed part and second fixed part,
it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, instant ¶52-53 disclose that the joining part is thinner so that it can be more flexible than the first and second fixed parts for detection accuracy and precision. Nieding’s joining part is disclosed as being flexible (¶27), which provides a level of detection accuracy and precision. Accordingly, there is no evidence of record to show that a claimed device having the claimed relative dimensional limitations would perform differently than the prior art device.
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 Nieding as modified such that the joining part is thinner than the first fixed part and second fixed part, since such a modification would be a mere change in the dimensions/proportions of the prior art apparatus for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieding in view of LV as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nagasaka et al. (US 20110239788 A1, hereinafter Nagasaka).
As to claim 8, Nieding teaches wherein the strain detecting sensor is a sensor configured to detect deformation (¶29).
Nieding does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to detect deformation in terms of a change in a resistance value.
Nagasaka teaches a torque sensor wherein strain sensors 134 detect deformation in terms of a change in a resistance value (¶58).
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 Nieding to have strain sensors that detect deformation in terms of a change in a resistance value as taught by Nagasaka since a modification would be a simple substitution of one kind of strain sensor for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieding et al. under a second interpretation (US 20040159165 A1, hereinafter Neiding2) in view of LV (CN 209945593 U).
The Examiner notes that Nieding2 differs from Nieding in at least how the joining part is interpreted.
As to claim 1, Nieding2 teaches a force sensor device comprising:
a strain generator 9’, 9-11, B (figs. 1-3) including a first fixed part 9, 9’, 11 secured to a portion 1 transmitting rotational driving force, a second fixed part 10 secured to the portion 14 (fig. 1) to which the driving force is transmitted, and a joining part (beams B plus the empty spaces between elements 10-11) that joins the first fixed part to the second fixed part; and
a strain detecting sensor D that detects deformation in the joining part of the strain generator (¶26),
wherein the first fixed part and the second fixed part are centered on a rotation axis (of steering wheel module 1 and/or shaft 14),
wherein the first fixed part is disposed outside the second fixed part across the joining part,
wherein the force sensor device further includes a support member A provided with a base X1 (proximal part of support member A directly attached to the second fixed part 10 - see fig. 2 above) secured to the second fixed part,
wherein the support member includes a regulator R (fig. 2 above) extending from the base,
wherein the support member is provided with a protrusion P (fig. 2 above) at an outer circumferential edge of the regulator,
wherein, in a support part W.sub.1, V (figs. 2-3) that is a partially raised portion (raised with respect to element 9’) of the first fixed part and extends in a rotation direction (see fig. 2), a groove (where an edge of a radially extending wall of bulge W.sub.1 meets projection V) is formed by cutting the support part from an inner surface in a radial direction toward an outer surface in the radial direction (the groove is capable of being made in the claimed manner),
wherein the protrusion of the support member is inserted into the groove (see figs. 2-3 and ¶35-36), and
wherein the groove opens in a circumferential direction around the rotation axis (the groove as defined above opens substantially in a circumferential direction about the rotation axis) so that the protrusion is allowed to move in the circumferential direction (via the “play” detailed in paras. 18 and 32).
Nieding2 does not teach wherein movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated.
LV teaches a torque sensor (¶2 and ¶13) with bidirectional overload protection (title; ¶23), comprising a sensor body 1, wherein rotational motion in both circumferential directions is limited by a plurality of inner portions 5 (having protrusions 5X – fig 2 above) and outer portions 3 separated from each other by gaps 4, wherein ones of the outer portions 3 limit circumferential motion of the protrusions 5X in one circumferential direction, and wherein other ones of the outer portions 3 limit circumferential motion of the protrusions 5X in the other circumferential direction (due to the outer portions 3 each having a recess/groove that is open on one side or another side – fig. 2; also see ¶23).
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 Nieding2 such that each of the recesses/grooves (corresponding with the “limit stop gap” in ¶28 of Nieding2) is open on one or another side in the circumferential direction as taught by LV since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing bidirectional rotation limiting for another for the predictable result that overloading is still successfully prevented.
Nieding2 as modified teaches wherein movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 9, Nieding2 teaches wherein the first fixed part has an annular shape,
wherein the second fixed part has an annular shape,
wherein a center of the annular first fixed part coincides with a center of the annularly arranged second fixed part,
wherein multiple strain detecting sensors D are annularly arranged (¶29 teaches that every beam B has a strain detecting sensor, resulting in the annular arrangement),
wherein the joining part is provided with a plurality of through holes (being the empty spaces between elements 10-11) arranged annularly, and
wherein the joining part is provided with a plurality of beam portions B formed by providing the plurality of through holes, and each of the plurality of beam portions is provided with a different one of the strain detecting sensors (¶29).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahnle et al. (DE 102016010546 B3, hereinafter Hahnle) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20170241761 A1, hereinafter Kosaka) and LV (CN 209945593 U).
As to claim 1, Hahnle teaches a force sensor device 500 (fig. 5) comprising:
a strain generator including a first fixed part 509 secured to a portion transmitting rotational driving force (the first fixed part is capable of being secured to a portion transmitting rotational driving force), a second fixed part 503 secured to the portion to which the driving force is transmitted (the second fixed part is capable of being secured to the portion to which the driving force is transmitted), and a joining part 507 (comprising flexible webs 519 - ¶67) that joins the first fixed part to the second fixed part; and
a strain detecting sensor (at least one unshown strain gage attached to at least one web 519 - ¶67) that detects deformation in the joining part of the strain generator (¶67),
wherein the first fixed part and the second fixed part are centered on a rotation axis (see fig. 5),
wherein the first fixed part is disposed outside the second fixed part across the joining part.
Hahnle does not teach (in the embodiment of fig. 5) wherein the force sensor device further includes a support member provided with a base secured to the second fixed part,
wherein the support member includes a regulator extending from the base,
wherein the support member is provided with a protrusion at an outer circumferential edge of the regulator,
wherein, in a support part that is a partially raised portion of the first fixed part and extends in a rotation direction, a groove is formed by cutting the support part from an inner surface in a radial direction toward an outer surface in the radial direction, and
wherein the protrusion of the support member is inserted into the groove, and
wherein the groove opens in a circumferential direction around the rotation axis so that the protrusion is allowed to move in the circumferential direction.
[AltContent: textbox (R1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image3.png
460
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hahnle teaches, in an alternative embodiment (fig. 9), a force sensor device 900 wherein the force sensor device further includes a support member 923 provided with a base BA (fig. 9 above) secured (via screws - ¶72) to a second fixed part 903, wherein the support member includes a regulator R1 (fig. 9 above) extending from the base, and
protrusions 927 for preventing overloading of the sensor device (¶70-72 teach that fig. 9 is a modification of fig. 8, which is a modification of fig. 7, which teaches that protrusions 727 in fig. 7 are fixed to bores 711a in the strain generator and contactlessly project into bores 725 of a support member 723, wherein the protrusions 727 only contact the insides of bores 725 when preventing overloading; additionally, the abstract teaches that protrusions 927 are fixed to bores 911a that are not part of support member 923; accordingly, protrusions 927 are fixed to the strain generator and also project contactlessly into bores in the support member and only contact the support member 923 for stopping overloading; as a result, one of skill in the art would understand that Hahnle does NOT explicitly teach that the protrusions 927 are fixed to the support member 923).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of fig. 5 of Hahnle to use a support member and protrusions as taught by fig. 7 of Hahnle to prevent overloading (¶70, Hahnle).
While Hahnle as modified still does not teach wherein the support member is provided with a protrusion at an outer circumferential edge of the regulator (instead, Hahnle as modified teaches that the support member has holes for the protrusions to project into, while the protrusions are fixed to the strain generator), such a difference between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been an obvious reversal of parts, as explained next. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). Similarly, configuring Hahnle as modified such that the protrusions are fixed to the support member and project contactlessly into bores in the strain generator would be a mere reversal of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 Hahnle as modified such that the protrusions are fixed to the support member and such that the bores, into which the protrusions contactlessly project, are in the strain generator, since such a modification would be a mere reversal of parts for the predictable result that overloading is still successfully prevented.
Regarding the limitations of the claimed groove,
Kosaka teaches a sensor device 10 comprising a strain generator 13 (fig. 3, ¶46) and a support member 12 comprising tab-like protrusions 31 (fig. 4) that project into stopper holes 32 in the strain generator 13 (figs. 1 and 4) with gaps in the rotational direction (¶45 and ¶53), wherein the stopper holes have a bottom in the axial direction of the device 10.
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 Hahnle as modified such that the stopper holes (cooperating with protrusions 927 of Hahnle) have a bottom in the axial direction of the device, as taught by Kosaka, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing stopper holes for another for the predictable result that overloading is still successfully prevented.
LV teaches a torque sensor (¶2 and ¶13) with bidirectional overload protection (title; ¶23), comprising a sensor body 1, wherein rotational motion in both circumferential directions is limited by a plurality of protrusions 5X (fig 2 above) protruding into recesses of a support part comprising portions 3, wherein ones of the recesses limit circumferential motion of the protrusions 5X in one circumferential direction, and wherein other ones of the recesses limit circumferential motion of the protrusions 5X in the other circumferential direction (due to the portions 3 each having a recess/groove that is open on one side or another side – fig. 2; also see ¶23).
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 Hahnle as modified such that each of the openings for limiting a protrusion 927 in Hahnle is open on one or another side in the circumferential direction as taught by LV since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing bidirectional rotation limiting for another for the predictable result that overloading is still successfully prevented.
Hahnle as modified teaches wherein the support member 923 (Hahnle) is provided with a protrusion 927 (Hahnle) at an outer circumferential edge of the regulator,
wherein, in a support part (being the portion of the first fixed part that is raised with respect to the bottom of the groove, which has a bottom in view of Kosaka’s teachings) that is a partially raised portion (raised with respect to the bottom of the groove) of the first fixed part and extends in a rotation direction (see fig. 9 of Hahnle), a groove (for accommodating Hahnle’s protrusion 927) is formed by cutting the support part from an inner surface in a radial direction toward an outer surface in the radial direction (the groove is able to be made in the claimed manner), and
wherein the protrusion 927 (Hahnle) of the support member is inserted into the groove, and
wherein the groove opens in a circumferential direction around the rotation axis (in view of LV) so that the protrusion is allowed to move in the circumferential direction (see the description of the stopper gap 4 in ¶23 of LV; also, ¶70-72 of Hahnle teach that fig. 9 is a modification of fig. 8, which is a modification of fig. 7, which teaches that protrusions 727 in fig. 7 are fixed to bores 711a in the strain generator and contactlessly project into bores 725 of a support member 723, wherein the protrusions 727 only contact the insides of bores 725 when preventing overloading; accordingly, protrusions 927 of Hahnle project contactlessly into the grooves of the modified Hahnle and are able to move in the grooves),
wherein movement of the protrusion in the circumferential direction in the groove is not regulated (in view of LV; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 6, Hahnle as modified teaches wherein multiple holes 511 (fig. 5) are formed in the first fixed part, each of the multiple holes vertically passes through (i.e. at least substantially through) the corresponding support part of the first fixed part, and
wherein multiple holes 929a (in fig. 9 for securing the support member 923) are formed in the second fixed part, each of the multiple holes vertically passes through (i.e. substantially through) the second fixed part.
Hahnle as modified does not teach wherein the holes 511 in the first fixed part are through holes,
wherein the first fixed part is secured to one of the portion transmitting the rotational driving force or the portion to which the rotational driving force is transmitted by using bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes of the first fixed part (this is because Hahnle does not explicitly teach that the holes 511 are through holes or whether they are threaded for engaging with bolts),
wherein the holes in the second fixed part are through holes, and
wherein the second fixed part is secured to one of the portion to which the rotational driving force is transmitted or the portion transmitting the rotational driving force by using bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes of the second fixed part.
Hahnle further teaches, in the embodiment of fig. 1, through holes 111 formed in the first fixed portion 109,
wherein the first fixed part 109 is secured to the portion transmitting the rotational driving force by using bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes of the first fixed part (the first fixed part is capable of being secured to a portion transmitting the rotational driving force with bolts since the through holes are capable of accepting bolts),
wherein multiple through holes 105 are formed in a second fixed part 103, each of the multiple through holes vertically passes through the second fixed part, and
wherein the second fixed part is secured to a portion to which the rotational driving force is transmitted by using bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes of the second fixed part (the second fixed part is capable of being secured to a portion to which the rotational driving force is transmitted by using bolts since the through holes of the second fixed portion are capable of accepting bolts).
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 fig. 5 of Hahnle as modified to have through holes in the first fixed part as taught by fig. 1 of Hahnle to more effectively transfer force to and/or from the strain generator (¶63 of Hahnle teaches that through holes 111 are “force introduction points,” suggesting that they facilitate the transfer of forces into and/or out of the strain generator).
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 Hahnle as modified such that the holes in the second fixed part are long enough to extend completely through the second fixed part as taught by fig. 1 of Hahnle since such a modification would be a mere change in the size of the holes for the predictable result that overloading is still successfully prevented by supporting the support member.
Hahnle as modified teaches wherein the first fixed part is secured to the portion transmitting the rotational driving force by using bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes 111 (Hahnle) of the first fixed part (the first fixed part is capable of being secured in the claimed manner),
wherein multiple through holes 929a (Hahnle; note that these holes were modified, as discussed above, to be through holes) are formed in the second fixed part, each of the multiple through holes vertically passes through the second fixed part, and
wherein the second fixed part is secured to the portion to which the rotational driving force is transmitted by using bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes 929a (Hahnle) of the second fixed part (the second fixed part is capable of being secured in the claimed manner).
As to claim 7, Hahnle as modified teaches wherein through holes 929b (fig. 9 of Hahnle) are formed in the base of the support member, and
wherein the support member is secured to the second fixed part by using the bolts that pass through the corresponding through holes of the support member and the corresponding through holes of the second fixed part (¶72 of Hahnle teaches that the support member and second fixed part are secured together via holes 929a-b; accordingly, in the modified Hahnle, the support member is capable of being secured to the second fixed part with bolts as claimed).
Response to Arguments
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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