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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6, 7, 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, the limitation “first wiring” need to be amended to - - a first wiring - - to prevent a potential 112(b) issue.
In claim 9, line 4, the limitation “third wiring connected” need to be amended to - - a third wiring connected - - to prevent a potential 112(b) issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 9, lines 4 and 7 recite “third wiring” which is unclear if there is a second wiring or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (WO20020171157A1, hereinafter “Hashimoto”).
As applied to claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a cutting tool (101) for cutting a workpiece by contacting the workpiece that is rotating, the cutting tool comprising:
a body portion (5, 11 and 13) having a bar shape extending from a first end to a second end; and a sensor (9) arranged on a surface of the body portion, the surface of the body portion including a first surface (surface of body portion 5/11 with recess 35, Fig. 2), a second surface (surface of body portion 5/13 with cavity 61), and a third surface (any remaining surface of body portion 5 of cutting tool), the sensor including a first strain sensor (9, paragraph [0035]) arranged on any of the first surface, the second surface, and the third surface (Fig. 8),
a board module electrically connected to the first strain sensor (see board module/portion which the sensor is mounted on, paragraphs [0041]-[0042], Figs. 2 and 8), and
a wireless communication unit mounted on the board module (Antenna 7 mounted on board/portion in Fig. 8) and transmitting a signal containing information on strain of the body portion detected by the first strain sensor to an outside (see paragraphs [0041] and [0043]),
the board module including a first portion arranged on the first surface (the portion in Fig. 8 which sensor 9 is mounted on), a second portion arranged on the second surface (the portion in Fig. 8 which antenna 7 is mounted on), and a connecting portion (37) electrically connecting the first portion to the second portion, the first strain sensor being electrically connected to the first portion or the second portion (the first strain sensor 9 is electrically connected to the first and second portions, paragraphs [0041], [0043], Fig. 8).
As applied to claim 2, Hashimoto teaches the invention cited wherein the first surface has a first recess formed therein, the second surface has a second recess formed therein, the first portion is arranged in the first recess, the second portion is arranged in the second recess, and the first strain sensor is arranged in one of the first recess and the second recess, or with the third surface having a third recess formed therein, the first strain sensor is arranged in the third recess (first recess 35 and second recess 61, Fig. 2).
As applied to claim 3, Hashimoto teaches the invention cited further comprising a lid that covers a sensor housing recess, which is one of the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess in which the first strain sensor is arranged, wherein the body portion includes a first bottom wall constituting a wall surface defining the sensor housing recess, and a second bottom wall constituting the wall surface defining the sensor housing recess, the second bottom wall having a smaller distance from an opening of the sensor housing recess than the first bottom wall, the second bottom wall surrounding the first bottom wall as viewed in a depth direction of the sensor housing recess, the first strain sensor is arranged on the first bottom wall, and the lid is arranged on the second bottom wall and is received within the sensor housing recess (lid 63 rests on the bottom wall of a recess portion with a smaller depth than a bottom wall of the recess portion 35 on which the sensor 9 is positioned, Figs. 1 and 7).
As applied to claim 4, Hashimoto teaches the invention cited wherein the first portion is a first board, the second portion is a second board, the connecting portion is a cable or a connecting board that electrically connects the first board to the second board, the body portion has a first through hole(holes for screw 57) formed to connect the first surface to the second surface, and the cable or the connecting board electrically connects the first board to the second board through the first through hole (see Figs. 8 and 10, region B2, paragraph [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hashimoto et al. (WO20020171157A1, hereinafter “Hashimoto”).
As applied to claim 5, Hashimoto teaches the invention cited including the electronic board module but does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion, the second portion, and the connecting portion are composed of a single board.
However, the court has held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the multipiece structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04-V-B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the first, second and connecting portion of Hashimoto’s board from a single board depending on the specific design criteria.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hashimoto et al. (WO20020171157A1, hereinafter “Hashimoto”) in view of Minora et al (JP2016004176A, hereinafter “Minoru”).
As applied to claim 6, Hashimoto teaches the invention cited including a sensor and wiring connection (abstract) but does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor further includes first wiring that connects the first strain sensor to the board module with slack.
Minoru teaches that in fabricating an electronic device it is well-known to provide a slack in the wiring between electronic components (i.e., sensors) on a circuit board to repent stress from being applied to the wiring due to any dimensional changes of the components (English Machine Translation, page 6, 7th full paragraph, page 7, last full paragraph of Claims). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the tool of Hashimoto wiring slack in the first wiring that connects the first strain sensor to the board module, as taught by Minoru, as an effective means of allowing the assembling of the sensor onto the board while preventing any damages incurred to the wiring.
As applied to claim 7, Hashimoto as modified by Minoru teaches the invention cited including body portion having recesses and the wiring has a slack. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the surface of the body portion has a fourth recess formed therein, and a portion of the first wiring corresponding to the slack is housed in the fourth recess.
Hashimoto explicitly teaches forming recesses and cavities in the body portion to accommodate components such as the board, sensor and antenna. In addition, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04-VI-B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide in the surface of the tool body of Hashimoto/Minoru a fourth recess and housed a portion of the first wiring corresponding to the slack depending on the specific design criteria.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-13 and 15 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 of record does not teach or fairly suggest the limitation of wherein the sensor further includes a second strain sensor electrically connected to the board module, the wireless communication unit transmits the signal further containing information on the strain of the body portion detected by the second strain sensor to the outside, the first strain sensor is arranged on the first surface and electrically connected to the first portion, and the second strain sensor is arranged on the second surface and electrically connected to the second portion and in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harada et al. (US 20240217003A1) teaches a cutting tool with a bar shape body portion and a sensor and battery arranged in the body portion and wireless communication unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 01/24/2026