NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohme et al. (US 2019/0275681 Al, “Bohme”).
Regarding Claim 1, Bohme teaches a system (fig.1-3) for determining a torque applied between two rotating members (fig.3; elements 3, 4) in one direction about a geometric axis of rotation (fig.3; [0055]), said system comprising: a test body (fig.3; element 1) having an inner bushing (fig.1; element 4) secured in rotation with means for coupling ([0059]) said test body to a first one of the members (4), and an outer bushing (3) extending around the inner bushing (4) and having means for coupling ([0059]) said test body to the second one of the members (3), said bushings being connected concentrically around the axis (shown in fig.3) by a deformable structure (elements 6, 7; [0063]) which is arranged to transmit torque between the members (3, 4) while allowing angular deflection between said bushings (when turning clockwise or counterclockwise, the angular deflection occurs in the structure 6/7) as a function of the torque applied between said members ([0063]; [0067]; Claim 1; fig.3); a device (fig.3; element 9) for determining an angle (measures strain) between the bushings (3, 4) as a function of the torque applied ([0058]; [0063]); the deformable structure including a set of branches (elements 6/7) angularly distributed (shown in fig.2-3) between the bushings ([0059]; Fig.3), each of said branches (6, 7) extending along a direction D between an inner (4; fig.3) end and an outer end (depicted in fig.3), said direction D forming an angle INCb with the diametral direction Dd passing through said inner end (shown in fig.3), each of said branches having a foot section (Sp) (where the strain sensors 9 are disposed in fig.2) extending from the inner end to the direction D and a head section (St) extending from said direction D to the outer end (shown in fig.2-3), said sections forming respectively a convex bend for the foot section (Sp) and a concave bend for the head section (St) (Utilizing Bohme’s teaching if one follows a path from the outer ring to the inner ring in Figure 3, for example by following the sub-branch which contains the reference numeral 10, then turning counterclockwise and then going back towards the outer ring, one can have each of said branches having a foot section (Sp) extending from the inner extremity to the direction D and a head section (St) extending from said direction D to the outer extremity, said sections forming a bend respectively convex for the foot section (Sp) and concave for the head section (St). [0059]-[0067], Claims 1-2).
Regarding Claim 2, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme further teaches wherein the angle INCb is between 80° and 100° (Fig.1-3 disclose that the segment 8 of the measuring spoke 7 is divided into two connecting struts 10. Four such sets of measuring spokes are uniformly arranged along the rings. Thus, the angle INCb is 90° and the limitation is implicitly taught by Bohme.).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme.
Regarding Claim 3, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme does not explicitly teach that each of the branches extends over a branch angular sector SECTb between the diametral direction Dd and a diametral direction Db passing through the outer end, said branch angular sector being between 50° and 70°.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such angular orientation of the arms, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention. Fig.1-3 disclose that the segment 8 of the measuring spoke 7 is divided into two connecting struts 10. Four such sets of measuring spokes are uniformly arranged along the rings. Thus, the branch angular sector 50° and 70° could be achieved utilizing Bohme’s structure.
Regarding Claim 4, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme does not explicitly teach that the bends having a radius of curvature RApI, RAtI, the radius of curvature RApI of the bend of the foot section (Sp) being smaller than the radius of curvature RAtI of the bend of the head section (St).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the arms, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention. Fig.1-3 disclose that the segment 8 of the measuring spoke 7 is divided into two connecting struts 10. Utilizing Bohme’s structure one of ordinary skill in the art may have the structure wherein that the bends having a radius of curvature RApI, RAtI, the radius of curvature RApI of the bend of the foot section (Sp) being smaller than the radius of curvature RAtI of the bend of the head section (St).
Regarding Claim 5, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for the foot section (Sp) extending over a foot angular sector SECTAp between the diametral direction Dd and a diametral direction Dp passing through the center of the circle defined by a radius of curvature RAtI of the bend of the head section (St), said head section extending over a head angular sector SECTAt between the diametral direction Dp and a diametral direction Db passing through the outer end, said head angular sector being smaller than said foot angular sector.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the arms, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for the branch length LGb of each of the branches being greater than 120% of the difference between the head radius RtH passing through the outer end and the foot radius Rp passing through the inner end.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the arms, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for each of the branches having a foot extending over a width Lbp around the inner end, said foot being connected to the inner bushing by two foot surfaces respectively upstream and downstream in the direction of rotation.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, the torque determination system according to claim 7 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each of the branches extends from the foot into an envelope formed by a superposition of circles comprising a first circle of diameter Cp1 tangent to the inner end and a second circle of diameter Cp2, said diameter Cp1 being greater than the diameter Cp2.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the torque determination system according to claim 8 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for the direction Dc passing through the centers of the circles of diameter Cp1 and Cp2 is inclined by an angle ANGpb with respect to the diametral direction Dd.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for each of the branches having a head extending over a width Lbt around the outer end, said head being connected to the outer bushing by two head surfaces respectively upstream and downstream in the direction of rotation.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the torque determination system according to claim 10 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for the upstream head surface being inscribed in a radius RtH which is greater than a radius RtB in which the downstream head surface is inscribed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme further teaches each of the branches having a portion for connection with the outer bushing (shown in fig.2-3).
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for said portion having a downstream face extending in a radial direction and an upstream face forming an angle ANGtb with said radial direction.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, the torque determination system according to claim 1 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for the outer bushing having at least one radial lobe which extends inside the bend of the head section (St), said lobe being equipped with means for securing the outer bushing to the second member.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 14, the torque determination system according to claim 13 is taught by Bohme.
Bohme discloses the claimed invention except for the lobe having a radius of curvature analogous to a radius of curvature RAtl of the bend of the head section (St) so as to form a reduced clearance JAp with said bend.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have such orientation of the branches, since applicant has not disclosed that such angular orientation of the arms solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arm arrangement of Bohme as the arm arrangement in Bohme is similar to that of claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the claim the reasons for allowability.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu et al. (US 2022/0236125 A1) teaches a torque-sensor strain beam structure and a torque sensor are provided. The torque-sensor strain beam structure comprises an external ring, a com1ecting hub and at least two strain beams. The external ring has a first joint. The connecting hub is located in the external ring and arranged coaxially with the external ring. The coll1lecting hub has a second joint. A first end of each of the at least two strain beams is fixedly coll1lected to an ill1ler wall of the external ring and a second end of each of the at least two strain beams is fixedly coll1lected to the coll1lecting hub. A strain grid is provided on each of the at least two strain beams. A load inputting point is located at the first joint or the second joint. Arrangement of the torque-sensor strain beam structure allows the torque sensor to have smaller volume while having higher measurement sensitivity [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855