DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response, filed 11/20/2025, has been entered. Claims 7 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are pending. All previous objections to the drawings and claims, as well as the 112b rejection of claim 11 are withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-15 have been fully considered but are moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
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.
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.
Claim 6 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 enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding claim 6: How can the central element can be on an inside wall of the cylindrical support material (as recited in claim 1) and yet also be in contact with at least one further side of the support material, as recited in claim 6, in view of the possible species of the instant disclosure? Further, claim 6 recites “in contact with at least one further side of the support member”, strongly suggesting or implying it is in contact with a first side as well as the “further side”. However, claim 1, on which claim 6 depends, does not recite a side of the support member. As such, it appears that claim 6 is mixing embodiments that cannot be combined, as disclosed. There is possible embodiment or species in the disclosure as a whole that would enable the limitations of claim 6 (i.e., the central element is on an inside wall of the cylindrical support material, in contact with some un-recited side of the support material, and in contact at least one “further side” of the support material).
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites “at least one further side of the support material”, strongly suggesting or implying it is in contact with a first side as well as the “further side”. However, claim 1, on which claim 6 depends, does not recite any side of the support material. Further, viewing the disclosed species and possible combinations, it is unclear how the central element can be on an inside wall of the cylindrical support material (as recited in claim 1) and yet also be in contact with at least one further side of the support material, as recited in claim 6, in view of the possible species of the instant disclosure. Indeed, it appears that no disclosed species or embodiments may meet limitations of claim 1 and have the central element be in contact with any side of the support material…only the inner wall (especially considering claim 6 implies, suggests, or requires contact with the inner wall and two sides).
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matysik (US 20160025579 A1, prior art of record) in view of Eschbach et al. (EP 3366229 A1, prior art of record) and further in view of Neuschaefer-Rube et al. (US 20180120176 A1).Regarding claim 1:Matysik teaches a method for producing a deformation body for the measurement of a force and/or a torque for a roll stabilization system of a vehicle, wherein the method comprises:
producing a central element (FIG. 9) configured to be joined to a support material (the device shown in FIG. 9 is inherently “configured to be joined” to a support material) and can be deformed by the said force and/or torque (abstract; [0021])
Matysik fails to explicitly teach:
preparing a support material having, at least in part, a cylindrical shape; joining the support material to the central element in order to make the deformation body([0002], [0021], [0060]. Matysik teaches that the device shown in FIG. 9 is a machine “element” which is “for transferring a force and/or a torque within a machine”. As such, it would be clear or, alternatively, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device shown in FIG. 9 is attached at each end to the part of the machine, of which the torque is to be measured. However, Matysik fails to explicitly teach this.)
joining the support material to the central element by arranging the central element on an inside wall of the support materialEschbach teaches:
the deformation body / load sensing device may be formed as a unitary body or formed by joining separately-formed components together (e.g., [0056])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a joined support material and central element as it is an art-recognized equivalent of forming a torque sensing device. I.e., making it from one piece vs. making it from multiple pieces which are then attached together are obvious varients.
The examiner notes that the combination with Eschabch meets the limitation of “support material having, at least in part, a cylindrical shape”. See Matysik - e.g., FIG. 9, [0059]-[0060].
Neuschaefer-Rube teaches (FIGS. 1-5):
joining the support material (e.g., 2) to the central element (3) by arranging the central element on an inside wall of the support material (3 is on an inside wall of 2; also see [0056] which states that 3 is magnetostrictive, similar to that of Matysik)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the central element on an inside wall of the support material, as taught by Neuschaefer-Rube, in the method of Matysik to protect the magnetostrictive / central / sensing element from external influences. Additionally/alternatively, the inner wall mounting of Neuschaefer-Rube is an art recognized equivalent means of placing the magnetostrictive / central element.
Regarding claim 2:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik also teaches:
wherein producing the central element is performed by injection-molding, pressing ([0024]-[0025], [0032]), 3D-printing, flame-spraying, hot-spraying, and/or sintering
Regarding claim 3:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Eschbach teaches:
wherein joining the support material to the central element is performed by injection-molding ([0056])
Regarding claim 4:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Eschbach teaches:
wherein joining the support material to the central element is performed by solid-body welding, flame-spraying, and/or sintering([0056])
Regarding claim 5:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik also teaches:
wherein producing the central element is performed such that the central element is configured as a sensor element (FIG. 9; abstract; [0021])
Regarding claim 8:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik also teaches:
wherein producing the central element is performed to result in the central element having an annular shape (e.g., [0060])
Regarding claim 10:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik also teaches:
wherein producing the central element is performed to result in the central element having an X-shape (FIG. 9 - the right side 02 / 01 forms an “X” shape)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matysik (US 20160025579 A1, prior art of record) in view of Eschbach et al. (EP 3366229 A1, prior art of record) and Neuschaefer-Rube et al. (US 20180120176 A1) and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (EP 3315933 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 9:Matysik and Eschbach teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik fails to teach:
wherein producing the central element is performed to result in the central element having a herringbone patternIshikawa teaches:
wherein producing the central element is performed to result in the central element having a herringbone pattern (FIGS. 1-2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the herringbone pattern of Ishikawa in the method of Matysik as it is an art-recognized equivalent pattern for the magnetostrictive elements in a torque sensor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matysik (US 20160025579 A1, prior art of record) in view of Eschbach et al. (EP 3366229 A1, prior art of record) and Neuschaefer-Rube et al. (US 20180120176 A1) and further in view of Yates et al. (US 4171626 A).Regarding claim 11:Matysik, Eschbach, and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik fails to teach:
forming the support material from at least one basis material and a binder before preparing the support material to have, at least in part, the cylindrical shapeYate teaches:
forming the support material from at least one basis material and a binder before preparing the support material to have, at least in part, the cylindrical shape(e.g., abstract, Col. 2, Lines 26-42, FIG. 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the basis and binder support material formation of Yate in the method of Matysik to yield a lightweight torque transmission shaft and other improved mechanical properties (Yate - abstract; Col. 1, Line 67 through Col. 2, Line 24).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matysik (US 20160025579 A1, prior art of record) in view of Eschbach et al. (EP 3366229 A1, prior art of record) and Neuschaefer-Rube et al. (US 20180120176 A1) and further in view of McCallum et al. (US 6352649 B1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 13:Matysik and Eschbach teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Matysik also teaches:
wherein producing the central element includes using at least one magnetostrictive material ([0091], [0095], etc.) Matysik fails to teach:
a binderMcCallum teaches:
wherein producing the central element includes using at least one magnetostrictive material and a binder (e.g., Col. 1, Lines 20-27)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material and binder of McCallum in the method of Matysik to yield: reduced cost, ease of assembly, tuned magnetostrictive properties and/or as it is an art-recognized suitable material for the purposes of making a magnetostrictive torque sensor (McCallum - Col. 2, Line 38 through Col. 3, Line 9).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matysik (US 20160025579 A1, prior art of record) in view of Neuschaefer-Rube et al. (US 20180120176 A1).Regarding claim 14:Matysik teaches (FIG. 3 or FIG. 9) a deformation body for measuring a force and/or a torque for a roll stabilization system of a vehicle, wherein the deformation body comprises:
a support element having, at least in part, a cylindrical shape (FIG. 3- unlabeled shaft; FIG. 9 - unlabeled shaft); and
a central element (FIG. 3 - e.g., 03, 01; FIG. 9 - 01) connected to the support element and can be deformed by the force and/or the torque([0002], [0021], [0060])Matysik fails to teach:
the central element on an inside wall of the support elementNeuschaefer-Rube teaches (FIGS. 1-5):
the central element (3) on an inside wall of the support element (e.g., 2)(3 is on an inside wall of 2; also see [0056] which states that 3 is magnetostrictive, similar to that of Matysik)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the central element on an inside wall of the support material, as taught by Neuschaefer-Rube, in the device of Matysik to protect the magnetostrictive / central / sensing element from external influences. Additionally/alternatively, the inner wall mounting of Neuschaefer-Rube is an art recognized equivalent means of placing the magnetostrictive / central element.
Regarding claim 15:Matysik and Neuschaefer-Rube teach all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Matysik also teaches:
wherein the central element comprises at least one adapter structure (e.g., FIG. 5 - 03) and a sensory inlay (FIG. 5 - 01) arranged on the adapter structure
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 Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855