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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 (and claims 11-14 by dependency) are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2 “a nut” should read “a pair of nuts” and in line 4, “a pair of nuts” should read “the pair of nuts” or otherwise be corrected.Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2012073214 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Fudouzi et al. (“Smart photonic coating as a new visualization technique of strain deformation of metal plates”).Regarding claim 1:Hamaguchi teaches (FIG. 8) a U-bolt comprising:
a pair of shaft parts (17) arranged in a first direction and extending in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, a bridge part (16) connecting one end of each of the pair of shaft parts, and
color changing means which changes color according to strain ([0002], [0016], [0025])Hamaguchi fails to teach:
a photonic crystal thin film, wherein the photonic crystal thin film is stuck to at least a part of at least one shaft part of the pair of shaft parts, and the photonic crystal thin film changes its color according to strain of the shaft partFudouzi teaches:
a photonic crystal thin film, wherein the photonic crystal thin film is stuck to the part, and the photonic crystal thin film changes its color according to strain of the part (e.g., abstract, FIG. 6, paragraph before conclusion)
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 photonic crystal thin film strain sensor of Fodouzi in the device of Hamaguchi to yield stronger U-bolt and/or more sensitive strain detection as no fracturing is required. Additionally/alternatively, one would be motivated to use the photonic crystal thin film of Fudouzi as it can be placed at other locations on the U-bolt to ensure uniform force application. Additionally/alternatively, one would be motivated to use the photonic crystal thin film of Fudouzi as it may be placed on the shaft(s) to directly be affected by the axial force instead of indirectly via the wall/plate of Hamaguchi. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art, given the structure of the film of Fudouzi, has a limited number of locations to place said film: the plate, the shaft, or the bridge part.
Lastly, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 2:Hamaguchi and Fudouzi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Hamaguchi and Fudouzi teach or render obvious:
herein in a state where the pair of shaft parts are inserted into a pair of through-holes provided in a fastened object and a fastening object is sandwiched and fixed between the U-bolt and one surface of the fastened object, the photonic crystal thin film is positioned between one surface of the fastened object and a boundary between the shaft part and the bridge part in at least one shaft part
Hamaguchi teaches all limitations regarding the (non sensing) structure of the U-bolt itself in FIG. 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the best placement of the photonic crystal film(s) of Fudouzi is on one or both shafts as the axial strain of the shaft(s) is what is to be measured to indicate sufficient tightening. Additionally / alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art, given the structure of the film of Fudouzi, has a limited number of locations to place said film: the plate, the shaft, or the bridge part. Lastly, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 10: See FIG. 8 of Hamaguchi. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to use a U-bolt (such as that of Hamaguchi) on a pipe (Hamaguchi refers to them as “rod-shaped members”).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2012073214 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Fudouzi et al. (“Smart photonic coating as a new visualization technique of strain deformation of metal plates”) and further in view of Sinsky et al. (US 20040053417 A1).Regarding claim 3:Hamaguchi and Fudouzi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Hamaguchi and Fudouzi fail to teach:
a reference thin film, wherein the reference thin film is stuck to at least a part of a portion different from a portion to which the photonic crystal thin film is stuck, the reference thin film does not change its color according to the strain, and the reference thin film has the color of the photonic crystal thin film when a target axial force acts on the shaft partSinsky teaches (FIG. 1):
a reference portion (28, the 24s), wherein the reference portion is stuck to at least a part of a portion different from a portion to which the indicator (19) is stuck, the reference portion does not change its color according to the indicated variable, and the reference portion has the color of the indicator when a target value is reached ([0020]; however, also see below)
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 reference portion of Sinsky to allow the user to easily determine matching colors. It is noted that Hamaguchi teaches (e.g., [0049]) a specified target strain / torque value. Fudouzi teaches that the photonic crystal thin film changes its color according to strain. Thus, the combination teaches there is some specific color at which the predetermined strain is reached. Differentiating slightly different shades of color, especially in different lighting conditions, can be difficult for a person. Thus, by having one or more reference colors (as taught by Sinsky) that correlate to specific strain values, increased accuracy is achieved by the user.
Regarding claim 7: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 3, as set forth above.
Claims 5-6, 11, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2012073214 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Fudouzi et al. (“Smart photonic coating as a new visualization technique of strain deformation of metal plates”) and further in view of Mekid et al. (US 20130064622 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6: All limitations of these claims are met and discussed in the claim 1 rejection above except for the limitation(s) regarding generating an image determine a color of the photonic crystal thin film and outputting fastening information related to the fastening on the basis of the strain (i.e., using an image to determine the color instead of a user visually determining the color or matching the color to a reference color). These remaining limitations are rendered obvious by Mekid ([0023]-[0026]). One would be motivated to combine the teaches of Mekid with those of Hamaguchi and Fudouzi to provide remote monitoring and/or increased accuracy (as the color can be more accurately determined than by the human eye).
Regarding claim 11: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 5 and 2, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 14: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 5 and 10, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 15: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 6 and 2, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 18: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 6 and 10, as set forth above.
Claims 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (JP 2012073214 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Fudouzi et al. (“Smart photonic coating as a new visualization technique of strain deformation of metal plates”) and Mekid et al. (US 20130064622 A1) and further in view of Sinsky et al. (US 20040053417 A1).
Regarding claim 12: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 5 and 3, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 16: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 6 and 3, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 6, 15, and 2, as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-9, 13, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious the subject matter of: a plurality of photonic crystal thin films, wherein respective photonic crystal thin films of the plurality of photonic crystal thin films has different color characteristics from each other, and a difference between a first color and a second color is larger than a difference between a third color and a fourth color, wherein the first color represents a color in which the respective colors of the plurality of photonic crystal thin films are mixed when the strain is within a first range, the second color represents a color in which the respective colors of the plurality of photonic crystal thin films are mixed when the strain is within a second range different from the first range, the third color is a color of one photonic crystal thin film from among the plurality of photonic crystal thin films when the strain is within the first range, and the fourth color is a color of one photonic crystal thin film when the strain is within the second range, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations (i.e., due to dependency) of claims 4, 8-9, 13, 17, and 20.
Conclusion
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