A METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING
LOAD APPLIED TO A FASTENING MEMBER
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of August 04, 2026.
CLAIMS
35 U.S.C. § 112
(Second Paragraph)
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the previous Office Action (April 6, 2026) has been overcome.
However, the following now applies.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention because the claim calls for the second surface to be substantially planar (ie. flat). However,
parent claim 1 has been amended to require that the second surface has a void between the body and workpiece formed therein extending substantially from the outer wall to the central threaded aperture. Applicant’s Figure 3 depicts the second surface of claim 1. The second surface in Fig. 3 is not substantially planar. Thus, a contradiction appears between the subject matter of claim 13 and parent claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 102
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim rejection under
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with regards to Saigo et al. (2017/0138387) as set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome. However, the following now applies.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 18 - 20, 22, 23, and 25 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Applicant’s cited prior art of Burmann (2006/0225511).
The Examiner notes that the cited prior art teaching of Burmann was previously cited in a claim rejection in the First Office Action (5/28/2025). The Applicant then amended the claims to overcome the teaching of Burmann. However, the claims have since been amended to overcome a subsequent claim rejection via the teaching of Saigo et al. (2017/0138387) while removing the distinguishing feature over Burmann because the feature was not supported by the Applicant’s specification. As such, the claims are now once again not patentably distinct over the teaching of Burmann.
With respect to independent claim 1, Burmann sets forth a nut device comprising:
a body (10) comprising a first surface (top surface in Fig. 4) and a second surface (bottom surface in Fig. 4) connected by an outer wall (2) and by a central threaded aperture with female threads (6) for engaging an elongate fastening member (bolt); and
a deformation measurement device (4) being received or formed with the body,
wherein the deformation measurement device (4) is located circumferentially about the body (a sensor element 4 is placed in each recess 3 circumferentially about the body as shown in Fig. 1),
wherein a relief area (11) is formed in the second surface (Fig. 4),
wherein the second surface is configured to abut a load bearing member (13) located between the second surface and the workpiece (not shown in drawings),
wherein the relief area defines a void between the body (10) and the workpiece (the void creates a space to contain the load bearing member/washer 13), and
wherein the relief area extends substantially from the outer wall to the central threaded
aperture (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 7, Burmann sets forth that the relief area has a frustoconical shape as claimed (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 11, Burmann sets forth that the deformation measurement device (4) is formed with the body (Figs. 1 & 2).
With respect to claim 13, in view of the Applicant’s interpretation of the phrase “substantially planar”, Burmann is interpreted as setting forth that the second surface (bottom surface in Fig. 2) is substantially planar (Fig. 2) as claimed.
With respect to independent claim 18, Burmann sets forth a fastening assembly for determining an applied load comprising:
a fastener comprising an elongate member (bolt) having a male threaded distal end; and
a nut device (1) having a body (10) comprising a first surface (top surface in Fig. 4), a second surface (bottom surface in Fig. 4) connected by an outer wall (2) and by a central threaded aperture with female threads (6) for engaging the elongate fastening member (bolt), and a deformation measurement device (4) adapted to measure deformation of the body and determine the load applied, the deformation measurement device being received (via 3) with the body,
wherein the deformation measurement device is located circumferentially about the body (a sensor element 4 is placed in each recess 3 circumferentially about the body as shown in Fig. 1),
wherein a relief area (11) is formed in the second surface (Fig. 4),
wherein the second surface is configured to abut a load bearing member (13) located between the second surface and the workpiece (not shown in the drawings),
wherein the relief area defines a void between the body (10) and the workpiece (the void creates a space to contain the load bearing member/washer 13), and
wherein the relief area extends substantially from the outer wall to the central threaded aperture (Fig. 4),
whereby tensioning of the fastener causes the deformation of the body (paragraph 15).
With respect to independent claim 19, Burmann sets forth a method of determining a load applied to a fastening assembly having a fastener and a nut device, the method comprising:
providing a fastener comprising an elongate fastening member (bolt) having a male threaded distal end; and
fixing the nut device (1) to the male threaded distal end, wherein the nut device has a body (10) comprising a first surface (top surface in Fig. 4) and second surface (bottom surface in Fig. 4) connected by an outer wall (2) and by a central threaded aperture with female threads (6), and a deformation measurement device (4) being received (via 3) with the body,
wherein the deformation measurement device is located circumferentially about the body (a sensor element 4 is placed in each recess 3 circumferentially about the body as shown in Fig. 1),
wherein a relief area (11) is formed in the second surface (Fig. 4),
wherein the second surface is configured to abut a load bearing member (13) located between the second surface and the workpiece (not shown in the drawings); and
determining the load applied to the elongate fastening member by:
measuring deformation of the nut device transversely to an axial direction of the elongate fastening member; and
determining the load applied to the elongate fastening member from the
deformation of the nut device,
wherein the relief area defines a void between the body (10) and the workpiece (the void creates a space to contain the load bearing member/washer 13), and
wherein the relief area extends substantially from the outer wall to the central threaded aperture (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 20, Burmann sets forth locating the deformation measurement device (4) around the body (Fig. 1) and tensioning the fastener and/or nut device.
With respect to claim 22, Burmann sets forth that the deformation measurement device comprises a strain gauge (4).
With respect to claim 23, Burmann sets forth that the deformation measurement device (4) is located all the way around the periphery of the outer wall of the body (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 25, Burmann sets forth that the relief area (11) is a void (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 26, Burmann sets forth that the relief area (11) is a void (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 27, Burmann sets forth that the relief area (11) is a void (Fig. 4).
35 U.S.C. § 103
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim rejection under
35 U.S.C. 103 with regards to Saigo et al. (2017/0138387) as set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome. However, the following now applies.
Claims 8 - 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burmann (2006/0225511) in view of Archer (2018/0231049).
With respect to claim 8, Burmann sets forth a nut with an outer wall but fails to set forth an enlarged flange portion adjacent the second surface and an axially remote portion adjacent the first surface.
However, Archer sets forth (Fig. 1) an enlarged flange portion (20) adjacent to such a second surface (ie. bottom side of nut 10) and an axially remote portion (14) adjacent the first surface (ie. top side of nut 10).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to use a flanged locking nut as taught by Archer in place of the nut as explicitly taught by Burmann.
The motivation being to incorporate the deformation measuring features of Burmann into a locking nut with mounting flange as taught by Archer for the purposes of measuring the stress or strain placed on the locking nut.
With respect to claim 9, Burmann sets forth that the outer wall comprises an indent (3) that receives the deformation measurement device (4).
With respect to claim 10, the outer wall of Archer comprises the enlarged flange portion.
With respect to claim 24, Archer sets forth that the outer wall (Fig. 1) comprises a transitional surface connecting the enlarged flange portion (20) and the remote portion (14).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burmann (2006/0225511).
With respect to claim 17, Burmann fails to explicitly set forth that the deformation measurement device (4) measures the circumferential expansion of the body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the device measures the circumferential expansion of the body.
The motivation being that as the stress on the nut device increases, deformation of the nut device occurs. Such deformation is not limited and thus includes that of the circumferential expansion of the body. Thus, by measuring the expansion of the body, the amount of stress on the body can be determined.
With respect to claim 21, Burmann fails to set forth that the deformation measurement device comprises a measuring ring.
However, it would have been obvious to one armed with the Burmann teaching to interpret the deformation measurement device (3) as a measuring ring.
The motivation being that Burmann teaches multiple sensor elements (4) arranged around the circumference of the nut (1) in the form of a ring (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of base claim 1 and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 has been found to be distinct because the prior art fails to teach or suggest such a device that the female threads have a first uniform pitch, that the male threaded portion of the elongate fastening member has a second uniform pitch, and that the first uniform pitch and the second uniform pitch are different.
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been found to be persuasive in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. In view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, all previous grounds of rejection have been overcome. However, the claims have not been found to be patentably distinct in view of the previously cited prior art teaching of Burmann (2006/0225511) because the Applicant subsequently removed the distinguishing feature over Burmann in a previous amendment. Burmann was previously cited in the claim rejection set forth in the First Office Action (5/28/2025). The Applicant then amended the claims to overcome the teaching of Burmann. The claims were then rejected under the prior art of Saigo et al. (2017/0138387) all the while the distinguishing feature was deemed as new matter not being supported by the Applicant’s specification. The claims were then subsequently amended to
remove the distinguishing feature over Burmann and now have been amended to overcome the teaching of Saigo et al. As such, the claims are once again deemed as not being patentably distinct over the teaching of Burmann.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The 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 from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights