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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The phrase “printed on” is unclear therefore “the strain gage is printed on the non-threaded part” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim states “wherein the assembly screw includes two threaded end parts separated by a non-threaded central part” however it is opposite in the drawing. Two non-threaded parts are separated by a threaded part.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 have been 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the strain gage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claims 2-5 have been rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., US7412898 (hereinafter, Smith) in view of Nishida et al., US20100054891 (hereinafter, Nishida), in further view of Hsieh US20150063941 (hereinafter, Hsieh).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a system (see Figs. 1-6) for determining the tightening torque of an assembly screw (see bolt 100, also see column 5, lines 52-61, not limited to concepts of other fasteners such as cap screws, set screws, rivets, cables, washer) including an assembly screw and an RFID reader 660 including an RFID antenna 662 and an RFID chip 664 to receive the electrical resistance value delivered by the strain gage of the assembly screw, a processing module 620 to determine a tightening torque from this electrical resistance value, and a display to display the determined tightening torque 614, wherein the assembly screw includes at least a threaded part 134 and a non-threaded part (see unthreaded portion between the head and the threaded portion 134 in Fig. 1).
Smith teaches the structural limitations of the fastener and a RFID tag 640, but fails to expressly teach the non-threaded part being equipped with a strain gage sensitive to the instantaneous elongation of the non-threaded part and with an RFID tag connected to the strain gage by a wired link, in order to allow the wireless transmission of an electrical resistance value of the strain gage representative of the instantaneous elongation.
However, Nishida teaches similar fastener assembly having a non-threaded part (see Fig. 3D) being equipped with a strain gage 61 sensitive to the instantaneous elongation of the non-threaded part (para. [0052]) and with an RFID tag connect to the strain gage by a wired link (para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the fastener of Smith to have an RFID tag connected to the strain gage by a wired link so an axial force acting upon the body 64 of the bolt can be measured accurately (see para. [0052]) and connection may be weatherproof.
Smith fails to further teach wherein the strain gage is printed on the non-threaded part of the assembly screw and in that the RFID tag is printed on the non-threaded part of the assembly screw.
As best understood, Nishida teaches the strain gage is printed/displayed on the non-threaded part of the assembly screw (see Fig. 3D) and in that the RFID tag is print on the non-threaded part of the assembly screw (see 62 in Fig. 3D).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed inventio to have strain gage displayed or located in the non-threaded part of the fastener in Smith as taught by Nishida so the axial force acting upon the body 64 can be measure accurately, and bolt operation does not interfere with the axial force detection (see Fig. 3D showing the components are housed in the groove 65).
Smith in view of Nishida fails to expressly teach wherein that the RFID reader includes sonic or light-emitting means to provide an alert in the event of loss of tightening.
However, Hsieh teaches an electronic screw and screw torque sensing device (see Fig. 4) includes an electronic torque display 300 is a light emitting diode for indicating torque value (see para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the RFID reader in Smith to include a light-emitting means for the regular maintenance so to repair or replace the defective screws.
Regarding claim 2, As best understood, Smith in view of Nishida, in further view of Hsieh teaches and/or make obvious of the system as claimed in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the assembly screw includes two threaded end parts separated by a non-threaded central part.
Smith in view of Nishida, in further view of Hsieh teaches and/or make obvious of the claimed invention except for second non-threaded part. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the second non-threaded part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener in Smith to have second non-threaded part so the strain gage and/or chip may be attached to the any of the non-threaded part for its proper function and detection as intended by user. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device, i.e. threads, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, A system as claimed claim 1, wherein the wired link is printed on the non-threaded part of the assembly screw.
Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1, wherein the fastener in smith has been modified by Nishida to have wired link connection, and fastener in both of the references have components in non-threaded part. See Smith Fig. 2 and Nishida Fig. 3D.
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Nishida, in further view of Hsieh teaches and/or make obvious of the system as claimed in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the strain gage is a uniaxial tensile resistance strain gage linked by wire to the RFID tag.
However, the examiner notes that Smith in view of Nishida, in further view of Hsieh teaches and/or make obvious of structural limitations of the claimed invention and has established and/or made obvious of the strain gage and wired link above in claim 1.
Further, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have a uniaxial tensile resistance strain gage linked by wire to the RFID tag in Smith because uniaxial tensile resistance strain gages are designed to be durable, and are widely used in civil engineering, aerospace, automotive and industrial application to withstand various environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Nishida, in further view of Hsieh teaches and/or make obvious of the system as claimed in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the RFID tag includes an active storage chip and a UHF antenna.
However, it is the examiner’s position that Smith in view of Nishida, in further view of Hsieh teaches and/or make obvious of structural limitations of the claimed invention and has established the RFID tag and the chip in claim 1. Further, the examiner considers it obvious for the RFID tag to include an active storage chip and a UHF antenna as an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of persuasive evidence that the configuration was significant in para. [0016] and fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Further, one skilled in art could have combined the elements as claimed to securely store the date in the storage chip and use UHF antenna to improve efficiency and real time monitoring of the system, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights