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 Interpretation
Claim 7 recites “the first material comprises a lightweight metal or alloy”. Examiner finds that “lightweight” has been defined by Applicant to mean that the first material has “a lower density than the second material” (see page 4 lines 27-33 of Applicant’s specification).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Nut drive mechanism” in claim 15, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “provide a torque to a nut” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “provide a torque to a nut” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for providing a torque to a nut. Examiner is interpreting “nut drive mechanism” to be a motor or equivalent structure based on the discussion of “nut drive mechanism” in page 8 lines 21-26 of Applicant’s specification.
“Nut drive mechanism” in claim 21, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “tightening the nut” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “tightening the nut” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for tightening the nut. Examiner is interpreting “nut drive mechanism” to be a motor or equivalent structure based on the discussion of “nut drive mechanism” in page 8 lines 21-26 of Applicant’s specification.
“Bolt coupling drive mechanism” in claim 15, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “provide a torque to the bolt coupling” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “provide a torque to the bolt coupling” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for providing a torque to the bolt coupling. Examiner is interpreting “bolt coupling drive mechanism” to be a motor or equivalent structure based on the discussion of “bolt coupling drive mechanism” in page 9 lines 10-14 of Applicant’s specification.
“Bolt coupling drive mechanism” in claim 22, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “tightening a bolt coupling” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “tightening a bolt coupling” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for tightening a bolt coupling. Examiner is interpreting “bolt coupling drive mechanism” to be a motor or equivalent structure based on the discussion of “bolt coupling drive mechanism” in page 9 lines 10-14 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “piston retraction mechanism” in claims 1-2 and 10-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “the second material comprises a material with a higher tensile strength than the first material”, but Applicant’s specification only mentions “the second material may comprise a material stronger than the first material” (see page 5 lines 1-2 of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, examiner finds that the limitation of “the second material comprises a material with a higher tensile strength than the first material” is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 10-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock.
Regarding claim 1, Kock discloses a bolt tensioner comprising: a load cell (Fig. 2 element 6, excluding element 11) comprising a body (Fig. 2 element 12), a first piston (Fig. 2 element 14), a second piston (Fig. 2 element 13), and a piston retraction mechanism (Fig. 2 elements 21, 22, and 23), wherein the body is a single component (Fig. 2) with a first piston chamber for the first piston and a second piston chamber for the second piston formed integrally therein (see annotated Fig. 2’’ below), the body further comprising a shoulder located between the first and second piston chambers (see annotated Fig. 2’’ below), the shoulder being integrally formed with the body and configured to limit the movement of the first piston and/or the second piston (see annotated Fig. 2’’ below, where the shoulder is integrally formed (i.e. the shoulder is a necessary structure to make the body complete) and the shoulder is capable of limiting the downward movement of the first piston and limiting upward movement of the second piston); and a first fluid port (see annotated Fig. 2 below) in fluid communication with the first and second pistons (Fig. 2, 4:39-48), where the first fluid port is in fluid communication with both pistons) for receiving a pressurised fluid to apply a tensioning force thereto (4:39-48 and 9:26-34, where “Fluid pressure medium” corresponds to a pressurized fluid); and wherein the piston retraction mechanism comprises a second fluid port (see annotated Fig. 2 below) operatively connected to at least one of the first and second pistons for receiving a pressurised fluid to apply a return force thereto, said return force being opposite to the tensioning force (Fig. 2, 5:3-13, where “fluid pressure medium” corresponds to a pressurized fluid and the force applied downwardly by the pressurized fluid which moves both pistons downwardly corresponds to a return force which is applied in an opposite direction as the upward tensioning force).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
824
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one of the first and second pistons comprises a piston head (see annotated Fig. 2’ below) located within a respective piston chamber in the load cell (see annotated Fig. 2’ below and see annotated Fig. 2’’ above); and further comprising a manifold (see annotated Fig. 2 above) configured to direct fluid (4:42-48, where “Fluid pressure medium” corresponds to fluid) from the first fluid port to the piston chamber on a first side of the piston head (see annotated Fig. 2’ below, 4:42-48); and wherein the piston retraction mechanism is configured to direct fluid from the second fluid port to the piston chamber on the opposite side of the piston head (see annotated Fig. 2’ below, 4:67-5:13).
PNG
media_image3.png
822
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the piston retraction mechanism is configured to direct fluid from the second fluid port to only one of the first and second pistons (Fig. 2, where the piston retraction mechanism only directly fluid from the second fluid port to the first piston).
Regarding claim 11, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the piston retraction mechanism is hydraulically driven (Fig. 2, 4:67-5:13).
Regarding claim 13, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a bridge (Fig. 2 elements 8, 11, and 25) configured to extend over and/or around a nut and bolt to be tensioned (Fig. 2 shows the bridge extending at least around a nut (5) and bolt (1)) and seat against a surface in which said nut and bolt are located (Fig. 2, where element 2 corresponds to the surface in which said nut and bolt are located).
Regarding claim 14, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the bridge is connectable to the load cell (Fig. 2, 4:35-39) and configured such that it forms a surface of one of the first and second piston chambers (see annotated Fig. 2’’ above, where the bridge, specifically element 11, forms at least a surface of the second piston chamber).
Regarding claim 15, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses comprising a nut drive mechanism (Fig. 2 element 32) configured to provide a torque to a nut (Fig. 2 element 5) in use (2:27-37 and 5:14-41).
Regarding claim 16, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a bolt coupling (Fig. 2 element 19) for engaging a bolt (Fig. 2 element 1) to be tensioned; and a bolt coupling drive mechanism (Fig. 2 element 39) configured to apply a torque to the bolt coupling in use (5:63-6:14).
Regarding claim 17, Kock discloses a bolt tensioner system for tensioning a bolt, the system comprising: one or more bolt tensioners according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and Fig. 1 show multiple bolt tensioners); and one or more fluid pumps (Fig. 2, where a source which feeds element 17 and a source which feeds element 22 corresponds to two fluid pumps as a fluid pump has been contemplated as “a source of fluid pressure medium” in 5:33-34) comprising at least two output feeds (Fig. 2, where each fluid pump will have at least one output feed, and therefore having two fluid pumps means that there will be at least two output feeds).
Regarding claim 18, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the one or more fluid pumps are configured to automatically cycle between each output feed (11:8-30 and 11:51-58, where either of the individual fluid pumps is configured to automatically cycle between their individual output feed being active and inactive).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock, in view of Walton et al. (US4998453), hereinafter Walton.
Regarding claim 5, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the manifold is integrally formed in the body.
Walton is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches the manifold (Fig. 1 the portion of element 24 which contains elements 40, 44, 38, and 42) is integrally formed in the body (Fig. 1, 3:8-13). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Kock discloses the invention except that the manifold is located external to the body instead of integrally formed in the body. Walton shows that a manifold integrally formed in the body is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both manifolds transport hydraulic fluid from a single hydraulic fluid source to multiple chambers). Therefore, because these two manifold types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a manifold integrally formed in the body for a manifold located external to the body.
Regarding claim 6, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the body is formed of a first material (Kock, Fig. 2, where the body must be formed of a material, and whatever that material is corresponds to a first material), and the manifold is formed of a second material (Kock, see annotated Fig. 2 above, where the manifold must be formed of a material, and whatever that material is corresponds to a second material).
Kock fails to disclose the manifold is connected to the body by one or more mechanical fasteners.
Walton is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches the manifold (Fig. 2 element 54) is connected to the body (Fig. 2 element 10) by one or more mechanical fasteners (Fig. 2 element 56). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Kock discloses the invention except that the manifold is mounted on a structure which is separate from the body instead of directly mounted to the body by one or more mechanical fasteners. Walton shows that a manifold directly mounted to the body by one or more mechanical fasteners is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both manifolds transport hydraulic fluid from a hydraulic fluid source to multiple chambers). Therefore, because these two manifold types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a manifold directly mounted to the body by one or more mechanical fasteners for a manifold mounted on a structure which is separate from the body.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock, in view of Walton et al. (US4998453), hereinafter Walton, in further view of Sam Hydromatics, attached as a PDF and found at https://web.archive.org/web/20191014055359/https://www.hydromacs.com/manifold-hydraulics-448989.html, in further view of Greenwell et al. (US11285573), hereinafter Greenwell, and as evidenced by Density of Metals, attached as a PDF and found at https://web.archive.org/web/20200918132544/https://theengineeringmindset.com/density-of-metals/.
Regarding claim 7, Kock, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further discloses the first material comprises a metal or alloy (Kock, Fig. 2, where the pattern shown on at least element 12, which is a part of the body, indicates a metal material (see MPEP6.08.02-IX)).
Kock, as modified, fails to disclose that the metal or alloy having a lower density than the second material.
Sam Hydromatics is also concerned with manifolds for hydraulic systems and teaches the second material (i.e. the material of the manifold) is stainless steel (page 1, where stainless steel is used). It 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 to modify the bolt tensioner of Kock, as modified, to make the manifold out of stainless steel, as taught by Sam Hydromatics, because Sam Hydromatics teaches that “Stainless steel is chemical and corrosion resistant and can have relatively high pressure ratings” (see page 1 of attached PDF).
Kock, as modified, teaches that the first material is a metal (Kock, Fig. 2, where the pattern shown on at least element 12, which is a part of the body, indicates a metal material (see MPEP6.08.02-IX)) and the second material is stainless steel (Sam Hydromatics, page 1), but as stainless steel is a metal, Kock, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the first material has a lower density than the second material.
Greenwell is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches the body (Fig. 7 element 320) is made of steel (11:53-59, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “steel” is a generic term which refers to mild steel). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Kock, as modified, discloses the invention except that the body is made of an unknown metal instead of being a metal other than stainless steel. Greenwell shows that a body made of steel is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both bodies are used in bolt tensioning systems). Therefore, because these body material types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a body made of an unknown metal for a body made of steel.
Kock, as modified, then yields the first material comprises a lightweight metal or alloy second material (Greenwell, 11:53-59, where the first material is steel one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “steel” is a generic term which refers to mild steel, which has a lower density than stainless steel which is the second material (Sam Hydromatics, page 1). Examiner finds that mild steel having a lower density than stainless steel is known, as evidenced by Density of Metals (see page 1 of of Density of Metals).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock, in view of Walton et al. (US4998453), hereinafter Walton, in further view of Sam Hydromatics, attached as a PDF and found at https://web.archive.org/web/20191014055359/https://www.hydromacs.com/manifold-hydraulics-448989.html, and in further view of Greenwell et al. (US11285573), hereinafter Greenwell, and as evidenced by Types of Metal strength, attached as a PDF and found at https://www.monarchmetal.com/blog/types-of-metal-strength/#:~:text=Tensile%20strength%20is%20the%20maximum,will%20perform%20in%20an%20application..
Regarding claim 8, Kock, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose the second material comprises a material with a higher tensile strength than the first material.
Sam Hydromatics is also concerned with manifolds for hydraulic systems and teaches the second material (i.e. the material of the manifold) is stainless steel (page 1, where stainless steel is used). It 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 to modify the bolt tensioner of Kock, as modified, to make the manifold out of stainless steel, as taught by Sam Hydromatics, because Sam Hydromatics teaches that “Stainless steel is chemical and corrosion resistant and can have relatively high pressure ratings” (see page 1 of attached PDF).
Kock, as modified, teaches that the first material is a metal (Kock, Fig. 2, where the pattern shown on at least element 12, which is a part of the body, indicates a metal material (see MPEP6.08.02-IX)) and the second material is stainless steel (Sam Hydromatics, page 1), but as stainless steel is a metal, Kock, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the second material comprises a material with a higher tensile strength than the first material.
Greenwell is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches the body (Fig. 7 element 320) is made of steel (11:53-59). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Kock, as modified, discloses the invention except that the body is made of an unknown metal instead of being a metal other than stainless steel. Greenwell shows that a body made of steel is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both bodies are used in bolt tensioning systems). Therefore, because these body material types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a body made of an unknown metal for a body made of steel.
Kock, as modified, then yields the second material comprises a material (Sam Hydromatics, page 1, where stainless steel is used) with a higher tensile strength than the first material (Greenwell, 11:53-59, where the first material is steel and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “steel” is a generic term which refers to mild steel (e.g. A36 structural angle), which has a lower tensile strength than stainless steel). Examiner finds that stainless steel having a higher tensile strength than mild steel (e.g. A36 structural angle) is known, as evidenced by Types of Metal Strength (see page 2 of Types of Metal Strength).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock, in view of Alegre (US20170282312).
Regarding claim 9, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to disclose a piston connector connecting the first and second pistons, the piston connector comprising a screw thread and/or interlocking formation for engaging a corresponding screw thread and/or interlocking formation on the first and/or second pistons.
Alegre is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches a piston connector (Fig. 2 element 37) connecting the first and second pistons (Fig. 2, 0065; where element 27 corresponds to a first piston and element 16 corresponds to a second piston), the piston connector comprising a screw thread and/or interlocking formation for engaging a corresponding screw thread and/or interlocking formation on the first and/or second pistons (Fig. 2 , 0065; where the shape of the piston connector (i.e. a pin) corresponds to an interlocking formation of the piston connector and the shapes of elements 39 and 38 correspond to an interlocking formation of the first and second pistons, respectively). It 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 to modify the bolt tensioner of Kock to provide a piston connector and interlocking formations, as taught by Alegre, because Alegre teaches that the interaction between the connector and interlocking formations of the first and second pistons “prevent any relative rotation between the pistons” (0065).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock, in view of Dumelow (US20170334049).
Regarding claim 12, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the first and second pistons have a stroke length of less than 12mm.
Dumelow is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches a piston having a stroke length of less than 12mm (0031, where a maximum stroke length of 10mm is within the claimed range). It 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 to modify the bolt tensioner of Kock to make the stroke length be less than 12mm, as taught by Dumelow, because having a stroke length within this range is old and well known in the art, which is supported by Applicant’s specification (see page 7 lines 2-3, “Conventional bolt tensioners typically have a piston stroke length of 15mm or less”, where “conventional” means that bolt tensioners with a stroke length within the claimed range are old and well known in the art). Examiner notes that Applicant fails to provide criticality for the stroke length being less than 12mm as Applicant contemplates a stroke length range being from 0mm to greater than 30mm (i.e. no upper limit) (see page 6 line 23 – page 7 line 24).
Kock, as modified, then yields the first and second pistons have a stroke length of less than 12mm (Dumelow, 0031, where a maximum stroke length of 10mm is within the claimed range).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock, in view of Thelen et al. (US20110005221), hereinafter Thelen.
Regarding claim 19, Kock discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to disclose the one or more fluid pumps have a maximum output pressure of 800 bar.
Thelen is also concerned with a bolt tensioner and teaches the one or more fluid pumps (Fig. 1 element 10) have a maximum output pressure of 800 bar (0025, where “the supply pressure is varying from 0 to 800 bar” corresponds to a maximum output pressure of 800 bar). It 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 to modify the bolt tensioner of Kock to modify the one or more fluid pumps to have a maximum output pressure of 800 bar, as taught by Thelen, because Thelen teaches that using a fluid pump with a maximum output pressure of 800 bar in a bolt tensioning unit is old and well known in the art (0025, where “The pressure generating aggregate 10 as described so far, is known” corresponds to the fluid pump with a maximum output of 800 bar being old and well known in the art). Examiner notes that Applicant fails to provide criticality for the maximum output pressure of 800 bar as Applicant contemplates the fluid pump having a smallest maximum output pressure of 700 bar and a maximum output pressure of greater than 1600 bar (i.e. no upper limit) (see page 10 lines 5-15 of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollges (EP3593939A1), attached as a PDF, in view of Kock et al (US3877326), hereinafter Kock.
Regarding claim 20, Kollges discloses a method for tensioning a bolt, the method comprising: engaging a nut with a bolt (Fig. 2, where element 17 corresponds to a bolt and element 19 corresponds to a nut, 0010 and 0022, where the nut (i.e. first nut) is part of a “bolt system” and “tightening a bolt system” requires the nut to be engaged with the bolt); connecting a bolt tensioner to the bolt (0022 step a); performing a tensioning operation comprising: operating the bolt tensioner to increase the tension in the bolt by less than a target tension (0022, step b, where step e “preferably at least one repetition of steps b) to d)” means that the “maximum force” discussed in step b is less than a target tension), tightening the nut (0022, step c), and relieving a tensioning force applied to the bolt (0022, step d); and repeating the tensioning operation until the target tension is achieved (0022, steps e and f).
Kollges fails to disclose that the bolt tensioner is the bolt tensioner according claim 1 and that relieving a tensioning force applied to the bolt is performed by retracting the piston.
Kock is also concerned with a method for tensioning a bolt and teaches the bolt tensioner according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Kollges discloses the invention except that the bolt tensioner is not the bolt tensioner according to claim 1 instead of a bolt tensioner which is the bolt tensioner according to claim 1. Kock shows that a bolt tensioner according to claim 1 is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both bolt tensioners tighten a nut and bolt to a flange). Therefore, because these two bolt tensioner types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a bolt tensioner according to claim 1 for a bolt tensioner which is not the bolt tensioner according to claim 1.
Kollges, as modified, then yields that relieving a tensioning force applied to the bolt is performed by retracting the piston (Kock, 10:46-62).
Regarding claim 21, Kollges, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses tightening the nut is carried out automatically (Kollges, 0054) by a nut drive mechanism (Kock, Fig. 2 element 32, 2:27-37 and 5:14-41).
Regarding claim 22, Kollges, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses automatically tightening (Kollges, 0054) a bolt coupling (Kock, Fig. 2 element 19) with a bolt coupling drive mechanism (Kock, Fig. 2 element 39, 5:63-6:14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kock fails to disclose “the body is a single component” because the body (6) of Kock is made up of two elements (11 and 12) and therefore cannot be considered a “single element”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the previous rejection did not rely on element 11 as the body was considered to be Fig. 2 element 6, excluding element 11, where the body is a subset of the load cell which encompasses the entirety of the load cell. However, based on the amendment of the body being a single component, a new interpretation of the body has been made in this rejection where element 12 shown in Fig. 2 corresponds to a body which is a single component.
Examiner notes that examiner considers “a single component” to be a broad term, where multiple subcomponents joined together can be considered “a single component”, but examiner finds that the body (12) of Kock also reads on a narrower terms such as “monolithic” as well.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kock fails to disclose that the shoulder is “integrally formed with the body” as the shoulder is only connected to the bottom element (11) of the body (11 and 12) and therefore cannot be considered integrally formed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that under the new interpretation described in the responds to “the body is a single component” argument above, the body corresponds to element 12 and the shoulder is a part of element 12 and is therefore “integrally formed with the body”
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kock fails to disclose that the shoulder is “configured to limit the movement of the first piston and/or the second piston” as Kock does not explicitly disclose that the shoulder performs or is capable of this function. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that annotated Fig. 2 above shows that the top surface of the shoulder is capable of limiting the downward movement of the first piston and the bottom surface of the shoulder is capable of limiting the upward movement of the second piston. Applicant has not supplied any argument as to why the shoulder would be incapable of limiting the movement of the first and/or second piston and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant appears to be arguing that any modification to Kock would be improper because Kock is not concerned with nor does Kock address any of the safety risks which Applicant is concerned with. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first finds that Kock alone discloses the limitations of claim 1. Examiner further finds that modifications made to bolt tensioner of Kock could be made in view of specific teachings from the modifying prior art or in view of what is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner finds that the bolt tensioner of Kock does not need to be concerned with solving the same issue as the instant invention to read on the claimed structure of the instant invention.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723