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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “further includes” appears grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “one or grooves” appears grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wire” lacks antecedent basis. The Office recommends amending to “a wire.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a loadcell” already has established antecedent basis from claim 1. The Office recommends amending to “the loadcell.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220297268 (herein Lai).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches A loadcell holder (23g, [0041], Fig. 11) for use within a digital torque wrench (torque wrench 10, [0025]) comprising:
a first surface configured to engage a loadcell, and wherein said first surface includes engagement means configured to limit rotational movement of the loadcell in relation to the loadcell holder (receiving slot 231g, [0041], Fig. 11; abutting portion 316g in Fig. 11 limits rotation of loadcell 32g; see [0041]); and;
a second surface distal from the first surface, and wherein said second surface includes a rounded surface configured to limit axial movement of the load cell holder and any load cell that engaged to the first surface (mechanism 23g, [0041], and Fig. 12 teaches mechanism 23 having rounded surface on the surface opposite surface 231g).
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) 2-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060291966 (herein Klemm).
Regarding claim 2, Lai does not teach, “wherein the engagement means is one or more prongs that are configured to engage mating recesses in a loadcell.” However, Klemm teaches it is known in the art to provide prongs and corresponding recesses that engage them (see projections 144 and pockets 145, [0053], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Lai does not teach, “wherein the engagement means are one or more recesses that are configured to receive mating prongs from a loadcell.” However, Klemm teaches it is known in the art to provide recesses and corresponding prongs that engage them (see pockets 145 and projections 144, [0053], Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lai does not teach, “wherein the rounded surface [on the second surface] is a detent disposed in a convex recess in the second surface.” However, Lai teaches it is known in the art to provide detects that receive convex surfaces (see receiving slot 231 that mates with convex arc surface 316 in Fig. 2, [0029], [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the bearing mechanism shown in Figs. 12-13 with the slot 231 and portion 316 found in Fig. 2 and [0029, [0032], onto the distal surface of tripping mechanism 23 because both serve the same function of limiting axial movement. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
For the above claims 2-3 and 5-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the projections 144 and pockets 145 of Klemm into the holder of Lai. One would be motivated to do so for at least as another means of limiting rotation, as a simple substitution of the surface 316g that also limits rotation.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai.
Regarding claim 4, Lai does not teach, “wherein the rounded surface [on the second surface] is a detent disposed in a convex recess in the second surface.” However, Lai teaches it is known in the art to provide detents that receive convex surfaces (see receiving slot 231 that mates with convex arc surface 316 of member 218 in Fig. 2, [0029], [0032]), so it would have been obvious to place corresponding surfaces on a distal second surface of mechanism 23.
Regarding claim 7, Lai teaches abutting member 318 is spherical ([0032], Fig. 2).
For the above claims 4 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the bearing mechanism shown in Figs. 12-13 with the slot 231 and portion 316 found in Fig. 2 and [0029, [0032], onto the distal surface of tripping mechanism 23 because both serve the same function of limiting axial movement. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150375379 (herein Lin).
Regarding claim 8, Lai does not teach, “another portion configured to be engaged to a wire holder.” However, Lin teaches it is known in the art to provide inner rod 11 that holds wires ([0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Lai does not teach, “wherein the portion is a shelf-like structure having an upper surface and a lower surface.” However, Lin teaches inner rod 11 having an upper and lower surface like a shelf in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, Lai does not teach, “one or grooves configured to receive and guide wire of a loadcell.” However, Lin teaches passage C for accommodating wires 50 ([0022], Fig. 4).
For claims 8, 11, and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the rod 11 into the torque wrench of Lai. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of transmitting signal between a control unit ([0022]).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai and Klemm as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of US 20150375379 (herein Lin).
Regarding claims 9-10, Lai not teach, “another portion configured to be engaged to a wire holder.” However, Lin teaches it is known in the art to provide inner rod 11 that holds wires ([0018]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Lai does not teach, “one or grooves configured to receive and guide wire of a loadcell.” However, Lin teaches passage C for accommodating wires 50 ([0022], Fig. 4).
For claims 9-10 and 13-14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the rod 11 into the torque wrench of Lai. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of transmitting signal between a control unit ([0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852