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 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 15-21 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.
Claims 15-21 recite the limitations “one of said loadcell” and "the other of said loadcell" in claim 15. However, the claim only introduces “a loadcell” and not two distinct loadcells, so there is insufficient antecedent basis for a second loadcell in the claim. Furthermore, the claim refers to “said loadcell” in the last limitation it is unclear whether it refers to “the one” or “the other” loadcell. This lack of clarity reoccurs in claims 16, 18, 19, and 21.
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 and 22 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 engaged to the first surface (mechanism 23g, [0041], and Fig. 12 teaches mechanism 23 having rounded surface on the surface opposite surface 231g).
Regarding claim 22, Lai teaches the digital torque wrench comprising a cylindrical casing structure having a longitudinal axis (rod portion 22b, Fig. 11), said loadcell holder disposable within the cylindrical casing structure with the second surface extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 12 shows left side of mechanism having surface equivalent to the present invention).
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, “at least one or groove configured to receive and guide a wire of the 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 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, Lai does not teach, “at least one groove configured to receive and guide a wire of the loadcell.” However, Lin teaches passage C for accommodating wires 50 ([0022], Fig. 4).
For claims 9-10 and 13, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant states “element 23g of Lai is not a loadcell holder at all.” The Office disagrees. Claim 1 recites “a first surface configured to engage a loadcell” and Fig. 11 clearly shows 23g engages with the assembly that includes seat 31 and strain gage 32g. The Applicant appears to interpret strain gauge and loadcell as being equivalent. However, it is known in the art that loadcells use strain gauges attached to a body that flexes under load. In this case the seat 31 (having deformation portion 33) acts as the body of the loadcell.
Applicant recites operation of the tripping mechanism. However, the open-ended use of the transitional phrase “comprising” does not exclude a tripping mechanism or any other mechanisms taught by Lai.
Applicant states Lai does not disclose a teaching or need to limit axial movement. The Office disagrees. The mechanism shown clearly of Figs. 3, 5, and 7 show that axial limitation is required for the proper functionality of the wrench.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7294793 (herein Axakov) teaches it is well known in the art of loadcell holders to use ball bearings 43 in recess 42, which relate to claims 15-21 of the present invention. CN-114375242-A (herein Bergmann) teaches axially disposed holes 9a, 9b (Fig. 3) and connecting pins are well known in the force transducer art to prevent rotation, which relate to claims 15-21 of the present invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights