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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 14 and 20 previously withdrawn. Claims 16-19 previously allowed. Claims 4-6 previously objected to. Claim 21 newly added. Claims 1-3, 7-13, 15, and 21 pending examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3,5-9, 16-19 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the following arguments;
“The Examiner cannot “eye-ball” an unscaled drawing to satisfy a precise numerical limitation”. The Examiner recognizes that generally speaking, the Applicant is correct. However, in this instance, there exists no need for precision. “At least five percent” merely requires one item to be slightly larger than the other. In this instance, the difference between the two is many times 5 percent. As seen in the following Examiner’s Illustration, the outer section is approximately 3 times the diameter as the inner section, or 60 times the required difference of 5 percent. Even if the drawing was an order of magnitude (10X) different from the actual device, the limitation would still be met 6 times over.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration A
Applicant argues that flange 14 and connecting piece are entirely separate components. The Examiner does not agree. First, the drawings do not show two separate pieces, but a single piece with separately defined portions (based on cross hatching). Second, it is entirely possible for one item to be a part of something else, yet labeled individually. Finally, the argument that Nussbaumer specifically defines a “separate” holding flange is not supported in the language, which merely says “halteflanches”, as opposed to the “getrennter halteflansches” that would indicate the modifier “separate”.
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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nussbaumer, DE 3222161 in view of Wu, US 20240100664.
Regarding claim 10, Nussbaumer discloses: A power tool (Fig. 1, Pneumatic Torque Wrench), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, housing 10);
a motor (Fig. 1, motor 18) in the housing;
an accessory holder (Fig. 1, tool 24) configured to hold a power tool accessory and driven by the motor;
a torque tube (Fig. 1, connecting portion 12) in the housing;
strain gauges (Fig. 1, torque sensor 34/strain gauge 36) on the torque tube; and
a controller (Fig. 1, strain measuring circuit 42);
the torque tube comprises a front section (Fig.1, holding flange 14), a rear section (Fig.1, unlabeled flange on right side of drawing opposite 14) and a central section between the front section and the rear section (Fig. 1, connecting portion 12); wherein
the front section is configured to engage a bearing (Fig. 1, bearing 32); wherein
the rear section is configured to engage the housing (see Fig. 1,); wherein
the strain gauges are on the central section (see Fig, 1); and wherein
an outer diameter of the central section is at least five percent smaller than an outer diameter of the rear section (see Fig. 1. While drawings are not necessarily to scale, as the flange portion is several times larger in diameter than the central portion, the claim limitation is met).
Nussbaumer does not explicitly disclose: the controller is configured to control operation of the motor based at least in part on measurements from the strain gauges.
Wu teaches: the controller is configured to control operation of the motor based at least in part on measurements from the strain gauges ([0026] “After the operation of the power body 21 has exceeded a predetermined torque, the control board receives a signal transmitted from the torque sensor 60 and immediately stop the operation of the power body 21.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the control systems as taught by Wu in combination with the Nussbaumer device, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that combining these features allows for automated utilization of the data taken by the gauge to prevent damage to the tool or a workpiece
Regarding claim 11, the modified Nussbaumer further discloses: the outer diameter of the central section is at least ten percent smaller than the outer diameter of the rear section (see Fig. 1. While drawings are not necessarily to scale, as the flange portion is several times larger in diameter than the central portion, the claim limitation is met).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Nussbaumer further discloses: the outer diameter of the central section is at least fifteen percent smaller than the outer diameter of the rear section(see Fig. 1. While drawings are not necessarily to scale, as the flange portion is several times larger in diameter than the central portion, the claim limitation is met).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Nussbaumer further discloses: a transmission (Fig. 1, gearbox 20); and
a gearbox housing at least a portion of the transmission (see Examiner Illustration 1); wherein
the torque tube surrounds at least a portion of the gearbox (see Examiner Illustration 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration 1
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nussbaumer, DE 3222161 in view of Wu, US 20240100664, further in view of Wang, US 20200164495.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Nussbaumer discloses the device of claim 10.
The modified Nussmauner does not explicitly disclose: the strain gauges are disposed at a 45-degree angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the torque tube.
Wang teaches: the strain gauges are disposed at a 45-degree angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the torque tube (see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the angled strain gauges as taught by Wang in combination with the Nussbaumer device, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that combining these features allows for a single gauge set to measure relative strain in all directions on the plain of the gauge. The Examiner further notes that this is not only common, but it is in fact the norm regarding strain gauges.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights