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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “locking mechanism” (as in claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a leakage prevention assembly configured to prevent hydraulic fluid from leaking at opening” in claim 15. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the leakage prevention assembly” as being, “a piston, a safety ring, piston rod, O-rings, seal, etc.” (see claim 16). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a holder”, is being interpreted as including a piston, a safety ring, piston rod, O-rings, seal and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locking mechanism to prevent accidental disconnection” in claim 25. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification fails to further define the components of the locking mechanism. Therefore, any threaded engagement is considered as reading on the locking mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10 and 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 10, discloses that “the internal surface of the safety ring is smooth and lines up with an internal surface of sleeve once assembled to allow movement of piston throughout.” However, it is unclear what the applicant means by using the phrase “lines up”. What structure does line up provide? Can a curved line meet the limitation of lining up? Does it require that an inner surface of the sleeve and an inner surface of the safety ring as being coplanar? If so, the examiner recommends further defining the claim to prevent confusion in determining the scope of the claim and that will also place the application in possible better condition for allowance.
Claim 11, discloses that “the internal surface of the safety ring is smooth and lines up with an internal surface of sleeve once assembled to allow movement of piston throughout.” However, it is unclear what the applicant means by using the phrase “lines up”. What structure does line up provide? Can a curved line meet the limitation of lining up? Does it require that an inner surface of the sleeve and an inner surface of the safety ring as being coplanar? If so, the examiner recommends further defining the claim to prevent confusion in determining the scope of the claim.
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 1-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruessmann et al. (5495782) in view of Junkers (2010/0270048), Koppenhoefer (WO 2015127408, citation included herewith), Shaw et al. (2006/0053981) and Fortoloczki et al. (WO 2021183695, citation included herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Ruessmann et al. disclose an apparatus for transmitting torque and tightening or loosening threaded fasteners (Figure 2), the apparatus comprising:
a housing (110) having a driving assembly (formed from 114, 115, 113 and 111) and a cylinder assembly (formed from 128, 127), a ratchet mechanism (115) being arranged in the driving assembly which is further associated and drivable by the cylinder assembly, wherein the cylinder assembly further comprises:
a piston assembly (128/127) reciprocating movable along a piston axis (i.e. the axis along 128); and
an end cap assembly having a safety ring (123) and a hydraulic cylinder assembly (formed from 120), the hydraulic cylinder assembly including:
an end cap (122) at a first end (i.e. upper end in Figure 2) and an opening (142) having an adjacent internally threaded surface (see internal threads engaged with external thread of 123) at a second end that accepts a piston (127/128) and threadedly engages with the safety ring, the safety ring being configured to retain a piston (127/128) of a hydraulically driven torque tool for tightening and/or loosening of threaded fasteners, wherein the safety ring having:
an externally threaded surface (see outer threads of 123 in Figure 2); and
an internal surface (see bold line in the figure below) including a retaining lip (see figure below) at one end which extends inwardly.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Another Retaining lip)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Retaining lip)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
310
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ruessmann et al. lack,
a dual reaction assembly,
an auto-release safety reaction pawl assembly,
a quick coupler with thread lock assembly; and
a cycle counter assembly.
However, Junkers teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hydraulic tool with a dual reaction assembly (602, paragraph 68 and Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Ruessmann et al., with the known technique of providing the dual reaction assembly, as taught by Junkers, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can be used with commercially available and custom manufactured reaction fixtures with or in replacement (paragraph 68).
Next, Koppenhoefer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hydraulic tool with an auto-release safety reaction pawl assembly (“ARPA”, see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Ruessmann et al., with the known technique of providing the auto-release safety reaction pawl assembly, as taught by Koppenhoefer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that enhances belting efficiency, increases torque accuracy and maximizes operator safety (see Abstract).
In addition, Shaw et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hydraulic tool with a quick coupler (54) with thread lock assembly (at 54 or 58, Figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Ruessmann et al., with the known technique of providing the quick coupler with thread lock assembly, as taught by Shaw et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device providing a means to supply and extract hydraulic fluid through the housing (see paragraph 45).
Finally, Fortoloczki et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hydraulic tool (see paragraph 5 on page 2) with a cycle counter assembly (290, see paragraph 5 on page 12 and paragraph 6 on page 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Ruessmann et al., with the known technique of providing the cycle counter assembly, as taught by Fortoloczki et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides options for service personnel to configure, setup, service, calibrate and/or troubleshoot the tool, (see paragraph 6 on page 28).
In reference to claim 2, Ruessmann et al. disclose further comprises a ratchet (113) connected with a driving element (114) and the ratchet is turnable about a turning force axis (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 3, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the ratchet receives a first turning force acting about the turning force axis in one direction during operation of the apparatus, further the first turning force turns a deep well hex socket attached to the driving element, which turns a fastener (Column 3, Line 65-Column 4, Line 7).
In reference to claim 4, Ruessmann et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
an uniswivel fluid assembly configured to inject hydraulic fluid into sleeve.
However, Shaw et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hydraulic tool with a uniswivel fluid assembly (56) configured to inject hydraulic fluid into sleeve (Figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Ruessmann et al., with the known technique of providing the quick coupler with thread lock assembly, as taught by Shaw et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device providing a means to supply and extract hydraulic fluid through the housing (see paragraph 45).
In reference to claim 5, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the piston assembly has a first end (127) formed as the piston and a second end is formed as a piston rod (128).
In reference to claim 6, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the cylinder assembly further includes a plurality of components such as, but not limited to, 0-rings, seals (124 and 126), retaining rings (136), and/or any foregoing combination.
In reference to claim 7, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the end cap assembly further comprises a cylindrical housing (120) defining a coaxial hydraulic cylinder (or sleeve, i.e. at 121) within (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 8, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the cylindrical housing has an end wall (or cap, i.e. at the inner surface of 122) at a first end and an opening (142) at a second end that accepts piston.
In reference to claim 9, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the safety ring being threadedly engageable with adjacent opening (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 10, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the adjacent opening of sleeve are internal threads to receive external threads of the safety ring (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 11, As Best Understood, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the internal surface of the safety ring is smooth and lines up (Note; the definition of the term “line up” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “to put into alignment” see definition 1 under transitive verb. Since, the internal surface of the safety ring is “put into alignment” with an internal surface of sleeve, it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim) with an internal surface of sleeve once assembled to allow movement of piston throughout (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 12, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the internal surface including the retaining lip prevent the piston assembly from being separated from the end cap assembly, because at least the upper portion of 123 as seen in Figure 2 will block the lower portion of 127 (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 13, Ruessmann et al. disclose that an outer edge (lower edge of opening 142, in Figure 2) of the retaining lip co-terminates with opening (depending on how much the threads are tightened or loosened) when assembled (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 14, the examiner notes that this claim recites Intended Use (see bold portion below) and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus form a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Since, Ruessmann et al. has met all of the structural limitations of the claims, the end cap assembly will similarly serve as a hydraulic piston eject safety assembly intended to identify the failure of the apparatus owing to a material fault or overuse/fatigue, which causes the housing to fracture, further portions of the piston assembly, end cap assembly, and/or housing are disengaged from, slip out of, and/or ejected from the apparatus when the housing fractures.
In reference to claims 15 and 16, modified Ruessmann et al. disclose a leakage prevention assembly (formed from the piston, the safety ring, the piston rod, the end cap assembly, O-rings, the seals and/or the retaining rings, [see below], which meet the limitation of the leakage prevention assembly, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 4a above) configured to prevent hydraulic fluid from leaking at opening, wherein the leakage prevention assembly comprises:
a piston (127) inserted into opening and sleeve;
the safety ring (123) threaded into the sleeve at opening;
the piston rod (128) attached to the piston and the drive assembly,
the end cap assembly (122) is attached to the housing;
the O-rings (note, Shaw et al. teach of O-rings, see paragraph 46), the seals (124 and 126) and/or the retaining rings (136) mounted and sealed cylinder assembly within the housing to prevent hydraulic fluid from leaking at the opening.
In reference to claim 17, the examiner notes that this claim recites Intended Use (see bold portion below) and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus form a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Since, Ruessmann et al. has met all of the structural limitations of the claims, when the apparatus fails, the safety ring prevents the piston from being detached from the end cap assembly by drawing the piston with the end cap assembly, and a component of the drive assembly is suited to grab the piston, preventing and/or substantially slowing any projection thereof.
In reference to claim 18, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the smooth internal surface of the safety ring and a smooth internal surface of the hydraulic cylinder assembly form a sleeve (112) which allows movement of the piston throughout (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 19, Ruessmann et al. disclose that the internally threaded surface at the second end is recessed from the smooth internal surface of the hydraulic cylinder assembly to accept the safety ring such that the smooth internal surface of the safety ring and the smooth internal surface of the hydraulic cylinder assembly form a sleeve which allows movement of the piston throughout (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 20, Junkers discloses that the dual reaction assembly is configured to allow the user to configure the apparatus for co-axial and/or rear reaction fixtures (paragraph 68).
In reference to claim 21, Koppenhoefer discloses that the auto-release safety reaction pawl assembly has been employed to improve safety and bolting operations by eliminating the need for the operator to flip a lever to unlock the apparatus when tightening or loosening threaded fasteners (see Abstract).
In reference to claim 22, Fortoloczki discloses that the cycle counter assembly is incorporated in the apparatus to track the apparatus usage and allow users to schedule preventative maintenance and calibration (paragraph 6 on page 28).
In reference to claim 24, modified Ruessmann et al. disclose further comprising a fastener (nut 131, as taught by Junkers, paragraph 31), a socket (111, as taught by Junkers, paragraph 31), a driver (113 of Ruessmann et al.) and/or one or more reaction fixtures (120, as taught by Junkers, paragraph 33).
In reference to claim 25, Shaw et al. disclose that the quick-coupler with thread lock assembly has a locking mechanism (threaded engage of 54) to prevent accidental disconnection, eliminating the need for the operator to guess when connections are secure (Figure 2).
Claim 23, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruessmann et al. (5495782) in view of Junkers (2010/0270048), Koppenhoefer (WO 2015127408, citation included herewith), Shaw et al. (2006/0053981), Fortoloczki et al. (WO 2021183695, citation included herewith) and Guenter et al. (WO 2012123284, citation included herewith).
In reference to claim 23, Ruessmann et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the cycle counter assembly includes a sensing device to measure each advance and retract stroke of the piston.
However, Guenter et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a cycle counter assembly including a sensing device (hall sensor 32) to measure each advance and retract stroke of the piston (see following portions of translation; “The determination of the instantaneous position of the piston with the travel of the piston is made possible in a simple way to determine the reaching of the end position of the piston and to end the load stroke…The end position of the piston 13 can be determined by determining the instantaneous position of the piston 13 over the travel of the piston during the load stroke… According to one embodiment of the invention, it is provided that the final pitch of the piston is detected by a sensor. A sensor, the final pitch of the piston can be determined very accurately. The detection over a sensor may alternatively or additionally to the detection of the end position via the travel of the piston. Although the sensor on the Kolbenzyünderantrieb biids a higher effort and a higher susceptibility to external influences, but also means a higher accuracy of the method according to the invention. Depending on which type of rotatable parts the method according to the invention is used, the provision of a sensor on the piston-cylinder drive can therefore be advantageous. The sensor may be an electronic sensor, an optical sensor or a Hall sensor. The sensor can be used, for example, as a limit switch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the cycle counter assembly, of modified Ruessmann et al., with the known technique of providing the cycle counter assembly including the sensing device, as taught by Guenter et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively (i.e. with a higher accuracy) determines instantaneous position of the piston over the travel of the piston during the load stroke
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
More et al. (4982626) discloses a hydraulic wrench including a safety ring having: an externally threaded surface (see outer threads of 123 in Figure 2); and an internal surface (see bold line in the figure below) including a retaining lip (see figure below) at one end which extends inwardly.
[AltContent: textbox (Safety ring)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
340
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723