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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-23 were originally filed.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramamurthy et al., US20130211740, (“RAMAMURTHY”).
Re claim 1, RAMAMURTHY discloses an apparatus for determining a torque value of an applied torque, the apparatus comprising:
an amplifier configured to receive an analog electrical signal that varies in voltage
with the applied torque, and increase an amplitude of the analog electrical signal to
produce an amplified, analog electrical signal, the amplifier having a gain that is
controllable and set based on a measured torque [0004];
an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert the amplified, analog
electrical signal to an equivalent digital electrical signal [0033]; and
processing circuitry configured to determine the torque value of the torque
applied to the fastener from the equivalent digital electrical signal, and output an
indication of the torque value [0044]
Re claim 2, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the apparatus is an electronic torque wrench, torque tester, torque meter or torque transducer [0018]
Re claim 3, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the apparatus further comprises: a strain gauge assembly configured to measure the applied torque, and produce the analog electrical signal that varies in voltage with the applied torque [0017]
Re claim 4, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the amplifier is a programmable-gain amplifier (PGA) or a variable-gain amplifier (VGA) [0017]
Re claim 5, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the equivalent digital electrical signal includes digital data points [0074], and the processing circuitry configured to determine the torque value includes the processing circuitry configured to:
determine a subset of the digital data points in a moving sample window [0074]; and
calculate the torque value from a rolling average of the subset of the digital data
points in the moving sample window [0074]
Re claim 6, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the apparatus further comprises a digital display, and the processing circuitry is configured to output the indication of the torque value to the digital display that is configured to display the torque value [0016]
Re claim 7, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the gain of the amplifier based on the measured torque, the gain set to a higher value when the measured torque lies at a lower end of a range of torque values, relative to when the measured torque lies at an upper end of the range [0021-0023]
Re claim 8, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the lower end of the range is below a rated torque range of the apparatus, and the upper end of the range is within the rated torque range [0058-0061]
Re claim 9, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 8, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein the gain of the amplifier is set above a predefined gain value gain when the measured torque is below the rated torque range, and set to gain when the measured torque is within the rated torque range [0058-0061]
Re claim 10, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 9, as shown above. RAMAMURTHY further discloses, wherein below the rated torque range includes a first subrange of torque values, and a second subrange of torque values that are greater than the torque values of the first subrange, and wherein the gain of the amplifier is set to a first value above gain when the measured torque lies within the first subrange, and set to a lower, second value above gain when the measured torque lies within the second subrange [0058-0061]
Re claims 13-21, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 1-10. Accordingly, claims 13-21 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-10.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 11-12 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over RAMAMURTHY in view of Gharib, US20150013475, (“GHARIB”).
Re claim 11, RAMAMURTHY discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above.
RAMAMURTHY fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the torque value further from a calibration function that maps the equivalent digital electrical signal to the torque value
However, GHARIB, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches processing circuitry configured to determine a torque value from a calibration function that maps the equivalent digital electrical signal to the torque value [0047-0049]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify RAMAMURTHY to include the particular calibration feature of GHARIB. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an accurate and reliable torque device to ensure fasteners are properly tightened. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, GHARIB merely teaches that it is well-known to have a calibration feature in a torque device. Since both RAMAMURTHY and GHARIB disclose similar torque measuring devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 12, RAMAMURTHY/GHARIB renders obvious the apparatus of claim 11, as shown above.
RAMAMURTHY further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the gain of the amplifier to a value from a plurality of predefined gain values [0058-0061]
RAMAMURTHY fails to explicitly disclose wherein the calibration function is a linear function selected from a plurality of linear functions for respective ones of the plurality of predefined gain values, and the plurality of linear functions include respective line segments for respective intervals of torque values over which the gain of the amplifier is set to respective ones of the plurality of predefined gain values
However, GHARIB, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches processing circuitry configured to determine a torque value from a calibration function wherein the calibration function is a linear function selected from a plurality of linear functions for respective ones of the plurality of predefined gain values, and the plurality of linear functions include respective line segments for respective intervals of torque values over which the gain of the amplifier is set to respective ones of the plurality of predefined gain values [0047-0049]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify RAMAMURTHY to include the particular calibration feature of GHARIB. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an accurate and reliable torque device to ensure fasteners are properly tightened. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, GHARIB merely teaches that it is well-known to have a calibration feature in a torque device. Since both RAMAMURTHY and GHARIB disclose similar torque measuring devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claims 22-23, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 11-12. Accordingly, claims 22-23 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 11-12.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20140171258, Boudet – torque meter device using a variable gain amplifier
CN212623765U, Yang et al. – torque control device
CN111922967A, Meng et al. – torque control device with variable amplifier and calibration features
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
Prosecution Insights