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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged and considered without traverse.
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, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, 24, 25, 28, 29, 32, 35, and 36 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 14 recites the broad recitation 1-10 slots, and the claim also recites 2-6 slots and 3-5 slots which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 14 and 32, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 7-8, 12, 25, 29 and 32, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 12, 14, 24 and 32, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 14, 19, 24-25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komsitsky et al., WO2011031806 (hereinafter, Komsitsky).
Regarding claim 14, Komsitsky teaches a measurement nut (214, see Fig. 14) comprising
- a contact portion 218, adapted for attachment to an object, such as a bolt 206 or a threaded rod, and
- a non-contact portion (see opposite to a contact portion in Fig. 14),
the contact portion and the non-contact portion being located coaxially (see Fig. 14), but axially offset, in relation to each other,
wherein the measurement nut is provided with a measurement zone (see region in between bars 216) located at a top surface (see Fig. 14) of the non- contact portion,
wherein the non-contact portion comprises at least one slot (see slots in between bars 216) extending in an axial direction of the measurement nut, preferably 1-10 slots, more preferably 2-6 slots, most preferably 3-5 slots (see Fig. 14).
Komsitsky fails to expressly teach wherein the measurement zone being adapted for performing a measurement at the measurement zone by determining a dimension change of the measurement nut being attached to the object.
However, Komsitsky teaches the bars 216 are flexible. Komsitsky meets all the structural limitations of the nut. Further, the nut in Fig. 14 is capable of functional limitations as recited above where the measurement zone between bars 216 of the measurement nut may be adapted for performing a measurement at the measurement zone by determining a dimension change of the measurement nut being attached to the object upon insertion of the bolt 206.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the nut as disclosed by Komsitsky to be configured to measure the dimension change to measure the effect and/or impact of bars 216 on the element to which the nut is attached to.
Regarding claim 19, Komsitsky teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement nut according to claim 14, wherein the non-contact portion (see portion opposite to contact portion 218) is non-threaded (see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 24, Komsitsky teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement nut according to claim 14, wherein the measurement zone comprises a measurement recess (see space/recess formed by surrounding bars 216), but fails to teach preferably the measurement recess having a depth in the range of 1 to 4 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the recess as disclosed by Komsitsky to be in the range of 1 to 4 mm in order to threaded bolt and/or any other connecting components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 25, Komsitsky teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement nut according to claim 14, wherein the measurement zone comprises a pattern (see chamfered straight lines on tip of the bars 216), the pattern being intrinsic or applied, e.g. a groove, the pattern e.g. comprising a circle, a straight line or a dot pattern (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 36, Komsitsky teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement nut according to claim 14, Komsitsky in embodiment shown in Fig. 44 teaches wherein the measurement nut 600 is a capped nut comprising a capping part 624, which is comprised in the non-contact portion of the measurement nut (see Fig. 44).
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 sleeve nut shown in Fig. 14 to have cap as shown in Fig. 44 so the flexing/expansion of the nut is controlled in non-contacting portion during installation.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 28-29, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komsitsky in view of Takman et al., US20100208940 (hereinafter, Takman).
Regarding claim 28, Komsitsky teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement system comprising
- the measurement nut according to claim 14 (see rejection set forth in claim 14 above).
Komsitsky fails to teach a sensor unit adapted to dock with the measurement nut to determine a dimension change of the non-contact portion of the measurement nut by measurement at or by means of the measurement zone, and
- an analysis unit adapted to determine a dimension change of the measurement nut from the determined dimension change of the non-contact portion.
However, Takman teaches a bolt assembly (see Fig. 2) having a sensor unit 21 adapted to dock with the measurement nut to determine a dimension change and an analysis unit 5 adapted to determine a dimension change (para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have combined assembly of Komsitsky with the sensor solution in Takman in order to monitor pre tension in the material and to measure torque. Further, it is the examiner’s position that upon modification of assembly in Komsitsky in view of Takman, the combination is capable of determining a dimension change of the non-contact portion by measurement at or by means of the measurement zone.
Regarding claim 29, Komsitsky in view of Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement system according to claim 28, wherein the sensor unit comprises a sensor from the group of a strain gauge, a capacitive sensor, a capacitance sensor, a heat-conductivity sensor, a piezo-resistive sensor, a piezo-capacitive sensor, a photodiode-based sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a pressure sensor, an organic thin-film transistor sensor, an optical sensor, a 3D scanner, a ruler, a caliper, a micrometer, a feeler gauge or a combined sensor including at least one of these sensors, the sensor e.g. being an array sensor (see para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have used a strain gauge or a mircometer as taught by Takman to have a mechanical arrangement using a micrometer and/or strain gauge for incorporating other electronics.
Regarding claim 32, Komsitsky in view of Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the measurement system according to claim 28, Komsitsky modified by Takman further teaches wherein the analysis unit is adapted to determine a degree of asymmetrical change of the determined dimension change of the measurement nut (see rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 28), e.g. by means of a mathematical curve fitting method, such as a least squares method, a method of moments or a method of maximum likelihood, preferably the analysis unit being adapted to compare the degree of asymmetrical change to a preselectable threshold level, and optionally the measurement system further comprising a warning system, which is adapted to transmit a warning, such as an audial, a visual and/or a haptic warning.
Further, Komsitsky modified by Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations as claimed above, and it is the examiner’s position that such combination is capable of meeting such functional limitations as set forth above.
Regarding claim 1, A method of determining a dimension change of a measurement nut, the measurement nut comprising a contact portion, adapted for attachment to an object, such as a bolt or a threaded rod, and a non-contact portion, the contact portion and the non-contact portion being located coaxially, but axially offset, in relation to each other, the measurement nut being provided with a measurement zone located at a top surface of the non-contact portion,
wherein the non-contact portion of the measurement nut comprises at least one slot at least partly extending in an axial direction of the measurement nut, preferably 1-10 slots, more preferably 2-6 slots, most preferably 3-5 slots, the at least one slot being used to increase the dimension change of the non-contact portion being induced from the contact portion.
(Komsitsky teaches and make obvious of the structural limitations of the nut. Please refer to the rejection set forth above in claim 14)
the method comprising
- attaching at least part of the contact portion to the object, the non-contact portion being without direct contact to the object,
- exposing the object to an external load, thereby causing a dimension change of the contact portion, and
- determining the dimension change of the measurement nut by measurement performed at the measurement zone of the non-contact portion.
Regarding method claims, Takman teaches similar system configured to determine the dimension change of the nut. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 14 based on Komsitsky modified by Takman.
Further, it is the examiner’s position that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Komsitsky in view of Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement is performed in a measurement recess provided at the top a top surface of the non-contact portion, preferably the measurement recess having a depth in the range of 1 to 4 mm, and/or the measurement is performed at or around a length axis of the measurement nut.
Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1 and in claim 24 above.
Regarding claim 7, Komsitsky in view of Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the method according to claim 1, wherein the dimension change is determined by means of a sensor unit comprising a sensor from the group of a strain gauge, a capacitive sensor, a capacitance sensor, a heat-conductivity sensor, a piezo-resistive sensor, a piezo-capacitive sensor, a photodiode-based sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a pressure sensor, an organic thin-film transistor sensor, an optical sensor, a 3D scanner, a ruler, a caliper, a micrometer. a feeler gauge or a combined sensor including at least one of these sensors, the sensor e.g. being an array sensor.
Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 29.
Regarding claim 8, Komsitsky in view of Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement is performed by means of a pattern comprised in the non-contact portion or comprised in the object (Nut assembly in Komsitsky combined with Takman is capable of performing such measurement), the pattern being intrinsic or provided, e.g. a groove, and wherein the method comprises
- determining the pattern by an array sensor, e.g. an image acquisition device (see claims 14-15 in Takman),
- using image analysis to derive dimension information from the pattern (see claims 14-15 in Takman).
Further, it is the examiner’s position that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises
- determining a degree of asymmetrical change of the determined dimension change of the measurement nut, e.g. by means of a mathematical curve fitting method, such as a least squares method, a method of moments or a method of maximum likelihood,
wherein the method preferably further comprises
- comparing the determined degree of asymmetrical change to a preselectable
threshold level,
and the optional step of
- transmitting a warning, such as an audial, a visual and/or a haptic warning,
when the determined degree of asymmetrical change exceeds the preselectable threshold level.
Komsitsky in view of Takman teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the claim above. Further, it is the examiner’s position that the combination set forth above are capable of performing functional limitations set forth above. The instant method limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding claim 35, The method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement nut is a capped nut comprising a capping part, which is comprised in the non-contact portion of the measurement nut.
Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claims 1, 14 and 36.
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