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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frankel et al. (WO 2005/021368 A1) (cited in IDS dated 17 December 2024) (citations from attached English machine translation) (hereinafter Frankel).
Regarding claim 1, Frankel teaches a torque sensor (Pg. 1) comprising:
a holder [sensor carrier 16, 128] including an inner peripheral member [radially inner part 34, 130] and an outer peripheral member [radially outer part 44, 132] (Pg. 5, see Figs. 2 and 10, see Claim 1);
a bearing [needle bearing 12, bearing shell 14] disposed at the inner peripheral member [34] (Pg. 5, see Fig. 2); and
a strain sensor [strain gauges used as sensor elements; at least one of a plurality of sensor elements 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 140] (Pgs. 5-7, see Claim 1, Figs. 2 and 10), wherein the outer peripheral member includes an elastic part [at least one of bending elements 54, 56, 58, 60, 138 prepared for deformation] (Pgs. 5-7, see Claims 1 and 10, Figs. 2 and 10), the strain sensor is attached to the elastic part [sensors each arranged in pairs on a bending element] (Pg. 7, see Figs. 2 and 10), and the elastic part and the strain sensor each extend a long a plane parallel to an axial direction [along axis of shaft 6] (see Figs. 2-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 2, Frankel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a plurality of elastic parts including the elastic part [bending elements 54, 56, 58, 60], wherein the plurality of elastic parts are disposed side by side at an outer side of the holder in a circumferential direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Frankel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the elastic part and the inner peripheral member of the holder oppose each other across a gap in a radial direction [recesses 36, 38, 40, 42] (Pgs. 5-7, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Frankel as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the elastic part includes a recessed part recessed in the radial direction at a surface opposing the inner peripheral member [bending element 138 having recessed part at surface opposing inner peripheral member 130] [embodiments of Fig. 1 and Fig. 10 both read on claim 1; embodiment of Fig. 10 teaches claimed limitations in claim 4] (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Frankel as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a connecting part connecting the inner peripheral member and the outer peripheral member, the connecting part including a recessed part recessed in the axial direction [elevations 46, 48, 50, 52 with recessed portion] (Pg. 5, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Frankel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a fixing part connected to an external device, the fixing part being disposed at an outer side of the elastic part in a radial direction [recess 62 with pin (not shown) connected to bicycle frame 4] (Pg. 5, see Figs. 1-2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Mikami et al. (JP 4722271 B2) (hereinafter Mikami).
Regarding claims 6-8, Frankel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the holder includes a contact part configured to come into contact with the bearing in the axial direction, wherein the contact part protrudes from the inner peripheral member and the outer peripheral member in a radial direction. Mikami teaches a bicycle torque sensor comprising a holder including an inner peripheral member and an outer peripheral member and including a contact part configured to come into contact with a bearing in the axial direction, the contact part protruding from the inner peripheral member and the outer peripheral member in a radial direction [displacement member 38 contacting bearing portion 30 axially; protrudes from an inner peripheral portion and outer peripheral portion] (Para [0014-0018], see Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Frankel with Mikami such that the holder includes a contact part configured to come into contact with the bearing in the axial direction, wherein the contact part protrudes from the inner peripheral member and the outer peripheral member in a radial direction, in order to secure the bearing from shifting in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 10, Frankel as applied to claim 9 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the external device includes a protruding part protruding towards the bearing. Mikami teaches a bicycle torque sensor comprising a fixing part connected to the bicycle frame, the fixing part including a protruding part protruding towards a bearing of which torque is being sensed [adapter/fixing member 37] (Para [0007], see Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Frankel with Mikami such that the external device includes a protruding part protruding towards the bearing, in order to secure the bearing within the bicycle frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights