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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12, lines 5-7 state “wherein a coil ring (1.4) encloses the expansion sleeve (1.2) axially in sections and radially and has an inner diameter that is smaller than the outer diameter of the flange (1.13)“. The phrasing should be changed because the coil ring 1.4 only encloses a single section of the sleeve 1.2, not plural sections. Claim 1, more clearly, should state “wherein a coil ring (1.4) encloses a section of the expansion sleeve (1.2) 1.13)” consistent with the specification (Abstract, Figs. 1, 1.1, 2).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17, line 4, recites “the sleeve portion”. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the sleeve portion”, but it is clear from the specification that a sleeve portion (1.3) is enclosed by the protective tube 1.5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer et al. (DE19917626, translation provided) in view of Searle et al. (DE19502616, translation provided).
Claim 12: Schweizer teaches a torque measuring coupling (Fig. 1) consisting of a stator (stator arrangement 14) and a torque-transmitting strain gauge sleeve (inner tube/shaft to which strain gauges are attached, bottom pg. 7), wherein the strain gauge sleeve is made up of several parts consisting of an expansion sleeve (inner tube to which strain gauges are attached, bottom pg. 7) and a flange (flange 10) attached thereto, a coil (rotor coil 25) encloses the expansion sleeve (the strain gauges are attached to an inner tube made of metal, and the rotor electronics including coil 25 can be arranged between the inner tube and an outer sleeve, bottom pg. 7) axially in sections and radially and has an inner diameter that is smaller than the outer diameter of the flange (Fig. 1 shows the flange 10 having a diameter greater than the tube 12, which surrounds the rotor electronics 25); and a protective tube (outer sleeve).
Schweizer fails to teach wherein a coil ring (1.4) encloses the expansion sleeve (1.2) axially in sections and radially and has an inner diameter that is smaller than the outer diameter of the flange (1.13), wherein the coil ring (1.4) is a closed, non-divisible ring and wherein the coil ring (1.4) accommodates a protective tube (1.5).
However, Searle teaches a torque indicting device which uses a coil (transmitting antenna 138; Fig. 11) positioned outside of a cylindrical wall 132 within a coil mounting ring 136. Therefore, it is known in the art to position a coil/antenna of a rotor internally or externally to a wall/sleeve/tube. Changing the position of the coil of Schweizer to be internal or external to an outer sleeve produces no new or unexpected results and does not modify the operation of the device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to accommodate the protective tube of Schweizer with the coil ring of Searle for the obvious benefit of mounting a rotor coil.
Claim 15: Schweizer in view of Searle teaches the coupling of claim 12. Schweizer fails to teach wherein the coil ring is pressed or glued onto the expansion sleeve.
However, Searle teaches wherein the coil ring (mounting ring 136) is glued to a cylindrical wall portion 132 (adhesive 137).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach a mounting ring with glue for the obvious benefit of fixing the coil ring in place.
Claim 17: Schweizer in view of Searle teaches the coupling according to claim 12. Schweizer teaches wherein the protective tube (outer sleeve) is arranged concentrically with respect to the expansion sleeve (inner tube/shaft) and said protective tube encloses the sleeve portion (see Fig. 1) radially outwardly.
Schweizer fails to explicitly teach that the protective tube (outer sleeve) is positioned between the coil ring and the expansion sleeve (inner tube/shaft).
However, Searle teaches a torque indicting device which uses a coil (transmitting antenna 138; Fig. 11) positioned outside of a cylindrical wall 132 within a coil mounting ring 136. Therefore, it is known in the art to position a coil/antenna of a rotor internally or externally to a wall/sleeve/tube. Changing the position of the coil of Schweizer to be internal or external to an outer sleeve produces no new or unexpected results and does not modify the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to accommodate the protective tube of Schweizer with the coil ring of Searle for the obvious benefit of mounting a rotor coil.
Claims 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Dropmann et al. (US6237730).
Claim 13: Schweizer in view of Searle teaches the coupling of claim 12. Schweizer teaches the strain gauge sleeve (tube 12) connected to a hub at one or both sides (the tube 12 connects to two flanges 17 which connect to two end tensioners 10).
Schweizer in view of Searle fails to teach wherein the strain gauge sleeve (1.1) is connected via a lamellar connection (2).
However, Dropmann teaches lamellar connections 63, 67 between a wall 3 and flange plate 21, and between a disk 25 and disk 23 (Fig. 4, col. 9, lines 14-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a lamellar connection, as taught by Dropmann, with the device of claim 12 in order to mount the elements in a resilient and axially movable manner (Dropmann, col. 9, lines 26-27).
Claim 19: Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Dropmann teaches the device according to claim 13. Schweizer in view of Searle fails to teach wherein the torsionally rigid and flexurally elastic lamellar connection (2) between the hubs (3, 5, 6) and the strain gauge sleeve (1.1) allows for angular, lateral, and axial misalignment compensation.
However, Dropmann teaches that the lamellar connections 63, 67 allow for axial displacement while transmitting torque (col. 10, lines 40-44). The lamellar connections of Dropmann possess identical structure and connection and therefore possess the characteristics including allowing for angular, lateral, and axial misalignment compensation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the lamellar connections of Dropmann with the device of claim 13 in order to mount the elements in a resilient and axially movable manner (Dropmann, col. 9, lines 26-27).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Dropmann further in view of Mayr et al. (US20090131179).
Claim 20: Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Dropmann teaches the device according to claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the lamellar connection (2) between the hubs (3, 5, 6) and the strain gauge sleeve (1.1) is free of play.
However, Mayr teaches a torsionally rigid flexible shaft coupling for transmitting torque under conditions of simultaneous radial, axial and angular misalignment [0023] wherein the objective is to transmit torque via a coupling without any play [0007]. Therefore, it is known in the art to transmit torque without any play/slip between the components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use lamellar connections, as taught by Dropmann, such that they are free of play, as taught by Mayr, in order to most effectively transmit, and thereby measure, the torque (Mayr [0007]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Gast et al. (US20090280743).
Claim 14: Schweizer in view of Searle teaches the device of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the coil ring comprises an aluminum alloy or a plastic or a fiber-reinforced material.
However, Gast teaches a coil 6 attached to a spindle 19 via a plastic inner carrier body 22 [0029].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a plastic material to hold the coil, as taught by Gast, with the device of Schweizer in view of Searle in order to allow the coil to interface with stator electronics (Gast [0027]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Ikuta et al. (US6983907).
Claim 16: Schweizer in view of Searle teach the device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the coil ring (1.4) serves as a carrier for a coil (1.8) and for a printed circuit board (1.10).
However, Ikuta teaches a coil carrier (spool support portion 13, Fig. 3) which supports both a coil 62 and circuit board 70.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to support both the circuit board and coil in the coil carrier, as taught by Ikuta, with the device of claim 12 in order to simplify assembly (Ikuta, col. 13, line 60- col. 14, line 5).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer in view of Searle further in view of Mokhbery et al. (US20180058969).
Claim 21: Schweizer in view of Searle teaches the device according to claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the printed circuit board contains an acceleration sensor that is suitable for measuring vibrations.
However, Mokhbery teaches a torque sensing system including an accelerometer 106 suitable for measuring vibrations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an accelerometer, as taught by Mokhbery, with the device of claim 12 in order to detecting misalignment (Mokhbery [0093]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed.
Claim 18 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 closest prior art includes Schweizer in view of Searle. Schweizer teaches an inner tube/shaft made of metal to which the strain gauges are attached, an outer sleeve, and rotor electronics in the space between the inner tube and outer sleeve. Searle teaches mounting a coil outside of a cylindrical wall 132 within a coil mounting ring 136.
Regarding claim 18: Schweizer in view of Searle fails to teach the protective tube (outer sleeve) is tightly sealed together with a tube receptacle of the expansion sleeve and by a casting compound in the coil ring so that no liquid, dusty, or viscous substances can penetrate into the space between the protective tube and the expansion sleeve. In an embodiment, Schweizer teaches coupling the tube 12 to a flange 17 via plate packs 11, but there is no reasonable teaching, suggestion, or motivation that the embodiment including the inner tube and outer sleeve would connect the outer sleeve to the inner tube directly via a tube receptacle. Casting compounds (potting, encapsulation, insulation) are known in the art. However, claim 18 establishes that the coil ring accommodates the protective tube such that the casting compound will prevent penetration of liquid or dust into the space between the protective tube and strain sleeve. Therefore, the coil ring bridges a gap between the protective tube (outer sleeve) and strain sleeve (inner tube). This positioning of the coil ring, protective tube, and strain sleeve would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on Schweizer in view of Searle without hindsight.
Regarding claim 22: Schweizer in view of Searle fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious a method wherein a protective tube (1.5) is connected to a closed, non-divisible coil ring (1.4), then a coil (1.8) is inserted into the coil ring (1.4) and cast with a casting compound (1.9), only then is the coil ring (1.4) positioned on the expansion sleeve (1.2), whereupon a printed circuit board (1.10) is inserted into the coil ring (1.4) and wired to the coil (1.8) and strain gauges (1.12) before the printed circuit board (1.10) is also cast with the casting compound (1.9), and a flange (1.13) is then connected to the expansion sleeve (1.2) in a torque-transmitting manner.
The coil ring 136, if connected to a protective tube in a manner taught by Searle when the ring 136 connects to a cover 131, would enclose the space created by the ring 136 such that nothing would be insertable therein. Further, the objective when connecting the protective tube to the coil ring in the claimed manner allows the coil ring to bridge a gap between the protective tube and the strain sleeve via casting material. Therefore, the method of claim 22 would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on Schweizer in view of Searle without hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/13/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
