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 statements (IDS) submitted on 21 October 2024, 13 November 2025, and 30 March 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-14 were originally filed.
Claims 1-14 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 § 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 8 and 14 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.
Re claim 8, Applicant recites the feature, “electromagnetic radiation, e.g., from an electric motor…” (emphasis added). However, exemplary language presents confusion as to the intended scope of the claim, and is best suited to set forth examples and preferences in the specification rather than the claims themselves. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret these limitations as any source of electromagnetic radiation.
Re claim 14, Applicant recites limitations that suffer from the same or substantially the same deficiencies as discussed above with regard to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8.
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 1-3, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Breitfeld et al., US20230266185, (“BREITFELD”).
Re claim 1, BREITFELD discloses an electric hand tool, comprising:
a driving unit for driving a shaft of the electric hand tool and configured to drive, via the shaft, a socket of the electric hand tool or a socket connectable to the electric hand tool [0120];
a magnetostrictive torque sensor for measuring a torque applied to the shaft via the driving unit [0116], [0003];
wherein the magnetostrictive torque sensor comprises a magnetized torque-transmitting part, which is a magnetized portion of the shaft, and a 3D magnetic field sensor that is an AMR, TMR, GMR, CMR or EMR magnetic field sensor, wherein the 3D magnetic field sensor is configured for measuring a total magnetic field, the total magnetic field including a magnetic field generated by the magnetized torque-transmitting part and an interfering external magnetic field [0116], [0003]; and
a processor for at least partially correcting the total magnetic field for the interfering external magnetic field to obtain a corrected magnetic field corresponding to the magnetic field generated by the magnetized torque-transmitting part, and for determining the torque applied to the shaft via the driving unit based on the corrected magnetic field [0003]
Re claim 2, BREITFELD discloses the tool of claim 1, as shown above. BREITFELD further discloses wherein the torque is due to a rotational force acting on the shaft via the driving unit and a counter rotational force acting on the shaft via the socket [0120], [Fig.6 and associated text]
Re claim 3, BREITFELD discloses the tool of claim 2, as shown above. BREITFELD further discloses wherein the interfering external magnetic field is measured by the 3D magnetic field sensor in a torque-free state of the shaft, wherein the counter rotational force acting on the shaft via the socket is zero [0178], [0003]
Re claim 8, BREITFELD discloses the tool of claim 1, as shown above. BREITFELD further discloses wherein the interfering external magnetic field is generated by an electric current, electromagnetic radiation, e.g. from an electric motor, or by a magnetized component, by at least one selected from the socket, a tool or a fastening element connected to the socket, an electric motor of the electric hand tool, and a geomagnetic field [0003]
Re claims 9-10 and 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of respective claims 1-3 and 8. Accordingly, claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9.
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 4-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over BREITFELD in view of King et al., TWI752365B (“KING”).
Re claim 4, BREITFELD discloses the tool of claim 1, as shown above.
BREITFELD fails to explicitly disclose an angular sensor for determining a rotational angle of the shaft
However, KING, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an electric hand tool with an angular sensor for determining a rotational angle of a shaft [p.3]
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 BREITFELD to include the angular sensor of KING. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the fastener torque based on the rotational angle of the shaft of the tool (see at least KING [p.2]). 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, KING merely teaches that it is well-known to include an angular sensor on a hand tool device for determining torque. Since both BREITFELD and KING disclose similar torque measuring tools, 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 5, BREITFELD/KING renders obvious the tool of claim 4, as shown above.
BREITFELD fails to explicitly disclose wherein the interfering external magnetic field is measured by the 3D magnetic field sensor depending on the rotational angle of the shaft determined by the angular sensor
However, KING, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an electric hand tool with an angular sensor for measuring a magnetic field based on the rotational angle of the shaft [p.4]
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 BREITFELD to include the angular sensor of KING. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the fastener torque based on the rotational angle of the shaft of the tool (see at least KING [p.2]). 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, KING merely teaches that it is well-known to include an angular sensor on a hand tool device for determining torque. Since both BREITFELD and KING disclose similar torque measuring tools, 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 6, BREITFELD/KING renders obvious the tool of claim 5, as shown above.
BREITFELD fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory is configured for storing a relation between a 3D value of the interfering external magnetic field and the rotational angle of the shaft, and wherein the processor is configured for obtaining the interfering external magnetic field depending on the rotational angle, based on the stored relation
However, KING, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an electric hand tool with an angular sensor for measuring a magnetic field based on the rotational angle of the shaft and a memory in communication with a processor, wherein the memory is configured for storing a relation between a 3D value of the interfering external magnetic field and the rotational angle of the shaft, and wherein the processor is configured for obtaining the interfering external magnetic field depending on the rotational angle, based on the stored relation [p.4]
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 BREITFELD to include the angular sensor and system components of KING. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the fastener torque based on the rotational angle of the shaft of the tool (see at least KING [p.2]). 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, KING merely teaches that it is well-known to include an angular sensor on a hand tool device for determining torque. Since both BREITFELD and KING disclose similar torque measuring tools, 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 7, BREITFELD discloses the tool of claim 1, as shown above.
BREITFELD fails to explicitly disclose wherein the socket is configured for receiving a fastening element
However, KING, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an electric hand tool wherein the socket is configured for receiving a fastening element [p.3]
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 BREITFELD to include the particular hand tool elements of KING. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the fastener torque based on the rotational angle of the shaft of the tool (see at least KING [p.2]). 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, KING merely teaches that it is well-known to include an angular sensor on a hand tool device for determining torque.. Since both BREITFELD and KING disclose similar torque measuring tools, 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 11-13, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of respective claims 4-7. Accordingly, claims 11-13 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 4-7.
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:
US20190041284, GieBibl – magnetoeleastic force sensor with interference compensation
US20180231425, Raths Ponce et al. – 3D torque sensor with compensation for interfering magnetic fields
US20150323397, May – force measuring device
US20100242626, Weng – self-compensating torque sensor system
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