METHOD FOR ASCERTAINING A FORCE
AND/OR TORQUE ACTING ON A COMPONENT,
SENSOR ARRANGEMENT, AND USE THEREOF
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of March 30, 2026.
DRAWINGS
In view of the Applicant’s amended Fig. 7, the drawing objection set forth in the previous Office Action of Jan. 07, 2026 has been overcome.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 6, the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome. However, the following now applies:
Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation “wherein the sensor arrangement lies outside of a force flow of the acting force”. However, the limitation is indefinite as to the specific meaning and location of the term “force flow”. As shown in the Applicant’s drawings, the sensor arrangement contains the reference element and the reference element is attached to the component. Thus, uncertainty exists as to how the sensor arrangement is outside of the acting force.
In addition, the phrase “the acting force” is indefinite as to what exactly is being referenced since the claim earlier sets forth that a force “and/or” torque acts on the component. Since the force was introduced in the alternative, the force is not required by the claim. Should the added phrase “acting force” also include the torque?
35 U.S.C. § 102
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a person shall be entitled to a patent unless 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 - 5 and 7 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Applicant’s cited prior art of Theiss et al. (2013/0247681).
The Examiner notes that independent claim 1 has been significantly amended by the Applicant. The amendment has led to a different interpretation of the applied prior art of Theiss et al. as compared to the interpretation as applied in the said previous Office Action. The different interpretation is the result of the Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to independent claim 1, Theiss et al. set forth a method for ascertaining a force and/or torque acting on a component (46) in a mechanical system by means of a sensor arrangement (66) comprising a reference element (68) clampable (78) on the component by a first end, and a sensor unit (see Fig. 7), the method comprising the steps of:
determining a reference value in an initial state (zero force and/or torque placed on the component) of the component by detecting a second end (72) of the reference element (68), when clamped to the component at its first end (78), via the sensor unit (74) disposed between (via 70) the component and the second end; and
determining, via the sensor unit (74), a measured value after a geometry and/or relative position of the reference element to the component changes under load (paragraph 30),
wherein an effective force and/or torque is/are determined using an evaluation (paragraphs 30 - 31),
wherein a difference between the reference value (no force and/or torque) and the measured value (applied force and/or torque) is a circumferential change (twist), and
wherein the sensor arrangement (66) lies outside of a force flow of the acting force (the force flow of the acting force is interpreted as being the twisting force within the component 46).
With respect to claim 2, Theiss et al. set forth (Fig. 7) that the measured value can be determined by sensing a structure (72) of the second end of the reference element (68).
With respect to claim 3, Theiss et al. set forth that a change in the force and/or torque acting on the component can be determined from the difference between the reference value (no force and/or torque) and the measured value (applied force and/or torque; paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 4, Theiss et al. set forth that the difference is an angle (paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 5, Theiss et al. set forth that the acting force and/or torque is determinable based on a mathematical model which describes the torque as a function of detected values and features of the component (paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 7, Theiss et al. set forth that the sensor unit (74) detects the relative position of the reference element (72) optically.
With respect to claim 8, Theiss et al. set forth a sensor arrangement for determining torque acting on a component (46) in a mechanical system, the sensor arrangement comprises:
the reference element (68) having a fixable first end (clamped end 78) and a free length extending to a second end (end opposite of clamp 78 in Fig. 7); and
the sensor unit (74) disposable relative to the reference element and arranged to determine the relative position of the reference element to the component (paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 9, Theiss et al. set forth that the sensor arrangement is disposable on the component (46), the reference element (68) being fixable to the component by the first end (78), the free length extending substantially parallel to a surface of the component and the sensor unit (74) being disposable on the component (via 70) to determine the relative position of the reference element.
With respect to claim 10, Theiss et al. set forth that the second end of the reference element (68) is a free end (see end opposite of clamp 78 in Fig. 7) at which a structure (72) is formed which is detectable by the sensor unit (74).
With respect to claim 11, Theiss et al. set forth that the second end (see end opposite of clamp 78 in Fig. 7) of the reference element (68) is fixable to the component (46) and the sensor
unit (74) is arranged to detect a change in position of the reference element relative to the component.
With respect to claim 12, Theiss et al. set forth that the reference element (68) is made of the same material as the component (46) and thus have the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
With respect to claim 13, Theiss et al. set forth that the sensor unit (74) is an optical sensor (paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 14, Theiss et al. set forth that the component (46) is a longitudinal component and the sensor arrangement (74) is adapted to be arranged on the longitudinal component to determine an axial load of the component.
With respect to claim 15, Theiss et al. set forth that the component (46) is a longitudinal component and the sensor arrangement (74) is adapted to be arranged on the longitudinal component borne on one side (Fig. 7) in order to determine a loading by forces substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the longitudinal component (paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 16, Theiss et al. set forth that the component (46) is a longitudinal component formed as a shaft and the sensor arrangement (74) is configured to be arranged on the longitudinal component in order to determine a torsional load of the component (Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 17, Theiss et al. set forth that the sensor arrangement (74) is adapted to be arranged in a region of a mechanical system which is in operative connection with the component (46) in order to determine the load on the component (Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 18, Theiss et al. set forth that the component (46) is a pipe that can be acted upon by fluid and the sensor arrangement (74) is adapted to be arranged on a the component in order to determine a pressure load on the pipe (paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 19, Theiss et al. set forth that the component (46) extends longitudinally along an axis (vertical axis of 46 in Fig. 7), and the said sensor unit (74), said second end (72), and said component (46) are aligned along a direction perpendicular to said axis.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s cited prior art of Theiss et al. (2013/0247681).
With respect to claim 6, Theiss et al. fail to explicitly set forth that the torque can be determined based on a previous calibration.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Theiss et al. teaching that the torque can be determined based on a previous calibration.
The motivation being that the torque is determined based on the calibration between the position of the disk portion (72) and a corresponding torque. Thus, the torque can be determined based on the calibration regardless if the calibration is a current calibration or a previous calibration.
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 have been considered and found persuasive in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to amended independent claim 1 being patentably distinct over the applied prior art of Theiss et al. have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive. In response to the previous rejection of claim 1, the Applicant’s significantly amended the claim. However, amended claim 1 does not distinguish over Theiss in view of a different interpretation of Theiss.
Specifically, Theiss sets forth that the optical sensor 74 (the “sensor unit”) determines a reference value of the tube 46 (the “component”) by detecting a disk portion 72 (the “second end”) of the arm 68 (“reference element”).
The Applicant argues that the arm (68) cannot be analogized as the reference element because the optical sensor is not between the tube (46) and the extension arm (68). The Examiner disagrees. Fig. 7 of Theiss shows arm (68) mounted to tube (46) at clamp (78). Base (70) is also mounted to tube (46). The optical sensor (74) is mounted to base (70). Thus, the optical sensor is mounted to the tube via the base whereas the extension arm is mounted to the tube via the clamp. As such, the optical sensor communicates between the tube on one end and the extension arm on the other end and is deemed as being “disposed between the component at the second end” as claimed.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The 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 from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights