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 .
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 10/04/2024 has been acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 line 6, the term “it” is ambiguous. What element does the term “it” refers? Is the element the clamping nut or the first secton? The limitation will be read as “...a clamping nut with a first section in which the clamping nut has an internal thread with which the clamping nut is screwed onto the external thread...” upon further examination. The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the arctangent" “the coefficient” in line 2; “the material” in line 3; and “the material” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations will be read as “…the internal angle (α) is smaller than an arctangent of a coefficient of static friction between a material of the clamping sleeve and a material of the clamping nut” upon further examination.
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 1-6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blessing et al (US 11221345 B2) “hereinafter Blessing” in view of Linden et al (US 7730798 B2) “hereinafter Linden”.
As best understood regarding claim 1, Blessing teaches a clamping mount for a sensor (20) comprising a clamping sleeve (10) with a first section (Column 5, line 51 – Column 6, line 16; Figures 3b & 3c), in which the clamping sleeve (10) is divided by slots into fins (16, i.e. spring elements) extending parallel to its longitudinal axis (L) (wherein the longitudinal axis (L) is in alignment of the orientation surface (25) as seen in Figure 36) (Column 6, lines 1-3).
However, Blessing does not teach a clamping nut with a first section in which the clamping nut has an internal thread with which the clamping nut is screwed onto the external thread of the clamping sleeve in such a way that the fins are bent into an interior space of the clamping sleeve wherein the clamping nut has a second section in which the inner lateral surface of the clamping nut is angled inwards by an internal angle (α) of at least 5°.
Linden teaches a sensor (1) having a first section (3, i.e. sensor part) in which the clamping nut (7, i.e. locking nut) has an internal thread with which clamping nut (7) is screwed onto the external thread of the clamping sleeve (4, i.e. sleeve part) (Column 4, lines 4-9 & 46-60; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to provide a clamping nut in which the clamping nut is screwed onto the external thread of the clamping sleeve as taught by Linden into the clamping mount for the sensor of Blessing for the purpose of locking the parts of the sensor into each other (Column 2, lines 13-19; Linden).
Also, regarding claim 1, Blessing in view of Linden teaches the claimed invention except for the clamping nut having a second section in which the inner lateral surface of the clamping nut is angled inwards by an internal angle (α) of at least 5°.
It is well-known to one skilled in the art to arrange the clamping nut being angled inwards by any desired direction or orientation, i.e. an internal angle (α) of at least 5°.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to the inner lateral surface of the clamping nut is angled inwards by an internal angle (α) of at least 5° on Blessing in view of Linden’s inner lateral surface for the purpose of measuring forces or speeds from various directions. Also, the rearrangement of parts, such as the inner lateral surface of the clamping nut being angled inwards by an internal angle (α) of at least 5°, based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Blessing in view of Linden teaches the claimed invention except for wherein a length of the first section of the clamping sleeve is in the range from 5 mm to 15 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to manufacture the clamping sleeve being in the range from 5 mm to 15 mm in Blessing in view of Linden’s clamping sleeve for the purpose of being easy to manufacture. Also, it would have been obvious to try for the purpose of being readily available and easy to manufacture to achieve a recognized result based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill in the art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2144.05 I)
Regarding claim 3, Blessing in view of Linden teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the slots in the clamping sleeve each have an angle (α) which is in the range from 10° to 50° with respect to a line parallel to the longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to manufacture the slots in the clamping sleeve each have an angle (α) which is in the range from 10° to 50° in Blessing in view of Linden’s slots for the purpose of being easy to manufacture. Also, it would have been obvious to try for the purpose of being readily available and easy to manufacture to achieve a recognized result based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill in the art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2144.05 I)
Regarding claim 4, Blessing teaches wherein at least 3 fins (16) each have a projection which projects into an interior space of the clamping sleeve (10) and has a triangular cross-section (See Figure 3c).
Regarding claim 5, Blessing in view of Linden teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the clamping sleeve consists of at least one plastic.
It is well-known to one skill in the art to manufacture the clamping sleeve to consist of at least one plastic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to select a known material such plastic as taught by Blessing in view of Linden’s clamping sleeve for the purpose of being readily available to the public and easy to manufacture. Also, the selection of a known material, such as plastic, based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Blessing in view of Linden teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the internal angle (α) is 45° maximum.
It is well-known to one skilled in the art to arrange the clamping nut being angled inwards by any desired direction or orientation, i.e. an internal angle (α) being 45° maximum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to the inner lateral surface of the clamping nut being angled inwards by the internal angle (α) of 45° maximum on Blessing in view of Linden’s inner lateral surface for the purpose of measuring forces or speeds from various directions. Also, the rearrangement of parts, such as internal angle (α) of 45° maximum, based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, Blessing in view of Linden teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the clamping nut consists of at least one plastic.
It is well-known to one skill in the art to manufacture the clamping nut to consist of at least one plastic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention being made to select a known material such plastic as taught by Blessing in view of Linden’s clamping nut for the purpose of being readily available to the public and easy to manufacture. Also, the selection of a known material, such as plastic, based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: As best understood regarding claim 7, Blessing teaches a clamping mount for a sensor (20) comprising a clamping sleeve (10) with a first section (Column 5, line 51 – Column 6, line 16; Figures 3b & 3c), in which the clamping sleeve (10) is divided by slots into fins (16, i.e. spring elements) extending parallel to its longitudinal axis (L) (wherein the longitudinal axis (L) is in alignment of the orientation surface (25) as seen in Figure 36) (Column 6, lines 1-3).
However, Blessing does not disclose or suggest the structural limitations of the clamping mount for the sensor further comprising the internal angle (α) being smaller than an arctangent of a coefficient of static friction between a material of the clamping sleeve and a material of the clamping nut where the stated limitations are not suggested in addition to not being anticipated or taught in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1 upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klein (US 12596022 B2) - The invention relates to a clamping sleeve for mounting a rotation sensor in a receiving opening which is provided in a receiving device, and to a rotation sensor arrangement and a rotation sensor system having such a clamping sleeve.
Yltchev-Edelmann et al (US 20140109700 A1) - The invention relates to a sensor having a sensor holder and an installation body which has a receiver device for the sensor holder at one end of the installation body and which has an interior, wherein connector lines for the sensor are guided at the interior in the installation body, wherein the receiver device is configured such that the sensor holder is rotatable with respect to the installation body and is adjustable by a telescopic extension or retraction or the sensor holder is rotatable with respect to the installation body and tiltable with respect to the installation body.
Zoller (US 7235744 B2) – The present invention relates to a device for securing a collar nut or collar screw, hereinafter referred to generally as a screw element having a collar, upon a housing and especially a plastic housing. The invention relates also to a housing assembly as mounted on a support, e.g. an automotive vehicle body, to a method of mounting a housing assembly upon such a support and to an electronic module in which a housing assembly of the afore described type has a printed circuit board between a housing shell and further housing part, referred to interchangeably as first and second housing members.
Kurz et al (US 6903544 B2) - The invention relates to a position transducer device for detecting the position of a position transmitter, comprising a housing extending in a longitudinal direction and a measuring sensor arranged in the housing and extending parallel to the longitudinal direction, the position transmitter being coupled to the measuring sensor without contact.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE L JENKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 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 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.
/J.L.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights