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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by 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 1 to 5 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:
The Claim includes the limitations:
“a predetermined shape repeatedly appears at every predetermined angle”, this is confusing since later “a first predetermined angle” and “a second predetermined angle”, are mentioned, but the plain “predetermined angle” is not defined in the claim.
The claim also reads “wherein one side in the rotational direction is a first rotation direction side, and the other side is a second rotation direction side”. This is confusing since the term “side” is usually used in reference to a part or section of a body or object, not to a direction, also the claim mentions “the other side” that doesn’t have antecedent basis in the claim. For prosecution the Examiner will consider that the parts rotate in a first direction and in a second direction opposite to the first.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim includes the limitations:
“the fitting part is configured to fit to the fitted part when a phase of the predetermined shape of the fitting part repeatedly appearing at every predetermined angle matches a phase of a corresponding shape of the fitted part” and also “a shift in phase between the fitted part and the fitting part”. This is confusing since the term “phase” is most commonly used as a stage, a state a period or a step on a process. For prosecution the claim will be read as that the “phase” corresponds to an angular position that would allow the “fitting part” be fitted with the “fitted part”. The “shift in phase” will be read as a shift on angular position.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4:
The claims includes the limitations:
“a direction along the axis of the fitting part is an axial direction, and a side in the axial direction to which the fitting part approaches the fitted part is a first axial side” and “a side in the axial direction to which the fitting part is separated from the fitted part is a second axial side”. Same as discussed for Claim 1, This is confusing since the term “side” is usually used in reference to a part or section of a body or object, not to a direction. For prosecution the Examiner will consider that the rotating body move in a first axial direction and in a second axial direction opposite to the first.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim includes the limitations:
“a seventh step of, after the screw member has been removed from the screwing target”. This is confusing since in general a seventh step follows a sixth step; but Claim 1 only disclose four steps. The Examiner wonders if the claim was meant as dependent of Claim 4. Also, it is confusing since a step of removing the screw member has not been disclosed in the claims.
The limitation “the holding unit” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP 404989).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kobayashi discloses a screw member tightening and loosening method for tightening and loosening a screw member using a rotating body comprising a fitting part configured to fit to a fitted part of the screw member, and is supported so as to be rotatable about an axis of the fitting part (Figure 1, holder 18 with socket 16, that will be considered the fitting part to fit the hole portion 14a of bolt 14, that will be considered the fitted part), the fitting part shaped such that a predetermined shape repeatedly appears at every predetermined angle in a rotational direction of the rotating body (Bolt 14 and socket 16 can be hexagonal), and wherein one side in the rotational direction is a first rotation direction side, and the other side is a second rotation direction side (Figures 2B and 2D show both opposite directions), the method comprising:
a first step of moving the rotating body so that the fitted part and the fitting part are axially aligned with each other; a second step of, while maintaining a state in which the fitted part and the fitting part are axially aligned with each other, moving the rotating body to press the fitting part against the fitted part (paragraph 17, Figure 2a show the moving of the already aligned parts); a third step of, while maintaining a state in which the fitting part is pressed against the fitted part, rotating the rotating body to the first rotation direction side by a first predetermined angle that is set to an angle corresponding to the predetermined angle (Figure 2b shows the parts being rotated an angle corresponding to the required torque, specified angle P); and a fourth step of, while maintaining the state in which the fitting part is pressed against the fitted part, rotating the rotating body to the second rotation direction side by a second predetermined angle, which is smaller than the first predetermined angle, the fourth step performed after the third step (Figure 2d, reverse rotation for the purpose of releasing the biting of the socket 16 up to a torque B).
Regarding Claim 2:
Kobayashi discloses that the fitting part is configured to fit to the fitted part when a phase of the predetermined shape of the fitting part repeatedly appearing at every predetermined angle matches a phase of a corresponding shape of the fitted part (Socket 16 and Hole 14a are both hexagonal and match when angles and flat faces match every 60 degrees),
the third step includes a first detection step of detecting a state of the rotating body, and in the third step, if it is determined based on the state of the rotating body detected in the first detection step that a shift in phase between the fitted part and the fitting part is not greater than an angle threshold set to a value equal to or smaller than the second predetermined angle, the method advances to the fourth step (Paragraph 0021 and 0022, a reverse torque is applied to detect biting; If no biting occurs, only the socket 16 rotates in the reverse tightening direction due to the reverse rotation the clearance between the hole 14a of the bolt 14 and the socket 16. if the socket 16 actually bites in, the bite can be released by continuing the reverse rotation up to the specified torque B, corresponding to the fourth step).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 404989) as applied to Claim 1 above and in view of Arimitsu (US 20210299804).
Regarding Claim 5:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Kobayashi discloses the invention as claimed, including that the tool can be used for loosening bolts (Paragraph 0002, screw member in the tightening completion state can be loosened by rotating the drive source in the reverse direction).
Kobayashi does not specifically disclose after if the screw member has been removed from the screwing target, moving the rotating body so that the screw member is held by the holding unit, wherein the seventh step includes a second detection step of detecting whether or not the screw member is held by the holding unit.
Arimitsu teaches a sensor that detects a contact state of the bolt held by the tightening device in a fixed state (Figure 1A, Paragraph 0020, sensor 16 that detects a contact state of the bolt A held by the tightening device 10 in a fixed state) and a link body to ensure that the bolt is retained by the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Kobayashi the teachings of Arimitsu and include a sensor that detects the bolt held by the tightening device and a link body to retain the bolt in the tightening device to ensure that the bolt was successfully removed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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 claims include subject matter that, as interpreted, is not described in the art of record, but at the same time the claims are being deemed unclear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, in particular Ehleiter (US 2007/0214919) can be used for a proper rejection of at least Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 29 December 2025