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 § 102/103
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.
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.
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 1-3, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lehovetzki (106/014032).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lehovetzki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a tool that includes a shaft body 103 made metal at least partially e.g., spring 113 or ball 116, wherein
wherein a groove defined by the body 103 between the lower flange and the upper shoulder @groove 126, Fig. 1B is provided continuously or intermittently along a circumferential direction on an outer peripheral surface of the shaft body, and comprising
a non-metallic spacer 106A, elastic material provided in the groove Fig. 1C,
an electronic tag 109 mounted on the shaft body 103 through the spacer Fig. 1C and provided continuously or intermittently along the circumferential direction, and
a jacket 106 member that covers the electronic tag from an outside Fig. 1C.
Please note that the spring or ball 113A, 116 are considered to meet the preamble reciting for a body made of metal at least partially, however in the alternative and in order to expedite the prosecution, Lehovetzki meets the claim, except for a body made partially of metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the inventio to form the body out of stainless steel for strength and durability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
149
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (DENT OR
OPENING)]Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Lehovetzki alone or as modified) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 1, wherein
the groove is provided continuously around the entire circumference on the outer peripheral surface of the shaft body Fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 1, wherein
a pair of inward-facing surfaces defined by 143 and 129 @126 as being surfaces that sandwich a bottom surface of the groove from both sides in the axial direction function as a regulating surface that restricts a movement of the jacket member along the axial direction.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 1, wherein the spacer 106A has a dent portion that is caved radially inward defined by the opening accommodating 109, annotated Fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 7, wherein a chamfered portion 129, Fig. 2A is provided at a position, which corresponds to the dent portion, on the outer peripheral surface of the shaft body.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 1, wherein each of the shaft body, the spacer, the electronic tag and the jacket member overlaps each other and has an insertion hole into which a common fastener is inserted Fig. 1C.
Claims 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (2020/0225106 “Chu”).
PNG
media_image4.png
493
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, Lehovetzki alone or as modified) meets all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above, except for the jacket member to comprise a plurality of split elements divided in the circumferential direction, and the split elements that are adjacent to each other are connected.
Chu teaches torque sensing and transmitting devices comprising a tag sensing module 20 protected by a jacket casing 41 that comprises two split elements 41 and 41. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the split jacket as taught by Chu for ease of assembly and disassembly for maintenance and service.
Regarding claim 5, PA (prior art, Lehovetzki alone or modified further modified by Chu) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 4,
wherein each of circumferential end surfaces of the split elements 41, 42 that are adjacent to each other faces each other Fig. 1,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CONCAVE
PORITON)]a concave portion opening not numbered is provided in the circumferential end surface of one of the split elements 41, a convex portion defined by pins not numbered, annotated partial Figs. 1&2 that enters the concave portion is provided in the circumferential end surface of the other split element, and the concave portion and the convex portion are connected Figs. 1 and 2. Please note, while claims terms are interpreted in view of the specification, limitations from specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool described in claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of the split elements has the same shape Fig. 1, Chu.
PNG
media_image9.png
513
288
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10
PA (prior art, Lehovetzki alone or as modified) meets all of the limitations of claim 10, as described above, except for the spacer to be tubular and to have a cutout formed from one end in an axial direction to the other end in the axial direction.
Chu teaches torque sensing and transmitting devices comprising a tag sensing module 20 protected by a jacket casing 41 that also defines a spacer, Fig. 2 that is tubular and defines an axial opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the tubular spacer as taught by Chu for an enhanced transmission and coverage of the tag.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA.
PA (prior art, Lehovetzki alone or as modified) meets all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above, except for the spacer 106A and the jacket member 106 to be press-fitted into the groove of the shaft body. Please note that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Press fitting of elements are old and well known. PA meets all the limitations, since product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the process steps, only the structure implied by the steps, thus a device produced by the method of prior art, would meet all the structural limitations, i.e., however, press-fitting the jacket and the spacer on the shaft, as an alternative means of achieving the same results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such methods are known in the art. (See MPEP 2113 [R-1]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a tool wherein the electronic tag comprises an inner antenna located radially inward, an outer antenna located radially outward from the inner antenna, an insulating sheet interposed between the inner antenna and the outer antenna, and an IC chip provided on the inner antenna or the outer antenna, together in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Vogel et al. and Harper et al. are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Hadi Shakeri/
August 27, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights