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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 27 May 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 May 2026.
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 1-7, 9-11, and 15 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) 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. Claim 1 is the lone independent claim pending in the Application at this time. The claim has an apparatus with a pre-tightening force measurement apparatus, a clamping assembly, a tightening assembly, and a time length measuring assembly. The claim states that the clamping assembly fixes the bolt in place. The tightening assembly applies a pre-tightening force to the bolt. The time length assembly measures a time length of each sampling in the process of tightening of the bolt. And a pre-tightening force measurement assembly measures the pre-tightening force to the bolt. There appear to be a few issues with the claim. First, if the clamping assembly fixes the bolt, then once the bolt is fixed, then the force on the bolt at that time should be the pre-tightening force. However, that is not where the pre-tightening force is measured. This doesn’t make sense because once any tightening force is applied, then the bolt has been tightened and you no longer are measuring a pre-tightening force on the bolt. The second issue is if the tightening assembly applies a tightening force, then how can you measure a pre-tightening force after tightening force has been applied? Also, how can a tightening force assembly be used to apply a pre-tightening force? This is never really disclosed or explained. A tightening force and a pre-tightening force should be different. That’s not quite clear here. Finally, there is a claimed measured sampling time of the tightening of the bolt. While it can be assumed that can be a twist of the bolt to tighten said bolt, it is again not clear how measurements of tightening of a bolt are related to pre-tightening fore which should be the force on the bolt before any tightening force is applied.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the case of the present invention, There is a lack of direction provided by the inventor as to exactly how this apparatus would work (Wands Factor F). There is no given comparison to working examples in order to bridge the gaps that appear to be missing in the invention (Wands Factor G), and the amount of experimentation needed in order to determine a difference between tightening, pre-tightening, and how they are related is very high and would be difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention as disclosed and claimed (Wands Factor H).
Therefore, claim 1 lacks enablement. Since claim 1 lacks enablement, then claims 2-7, 9-11, and 15, which depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, lack enablement as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Number 9,645,025, belonging to Yang, discloses a sensing screw capable of providing synchronous both pre-drawing of fiber Bragg grating and pre-tightening of bolt with induced characteristics to detect feedback control of large-scale public engineering structures or precise equipments to facilitate fabrication of precise elements to achieve more precise control and record fabrication processes.
The present rejection does not contain a prior art rejection, but that is in not meant as an indication of any allowable subject matter in the present application. The current 35 USC 112 issues in the claims actually present an issue with performing an adequate and proper search of the claims in relation to the prior art as it is difficult at this time to determine precisely what the invention is truly doing and how. Should the applicant amend the claims to resolve these issues, then a new search will be conducted and if at that time similar prior art is found and a prior art rejection is made, then that rejection can be made final if the rejection is deemed to be made in view of the newly amended claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/RODNEY T FRANK/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights