DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed April 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 17-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Currently, claims 1-16 and 21-23 are pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5, 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hoshina have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments and arguments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made of claims 1 and 14 under Double Patenting.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2-4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hoshina in view of Brassert have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments and arguments. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hoshina in view of Brassert has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hoshina in view of Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments and arguments. Therefore, the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hoshina in view of Lee has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 14 of the instant application are broader recitations of claims 2 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,587.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Hoshina as modified by Brassert and Lee above represents the best art of record. However, Hoshina as modified by Brassert and Lee above fails to encompass all of the limitations of currently amended independent claims 1 and 14.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the teachings of Hoshina with the teachings of Brassert to arrive the claimed inventions of claims 1 and 14 (see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/28/2026, pages 9-14).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 1 and 14 and the examiner can find no teachings for a system or method for sensing torque as particularly claimed, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claims 2-13, 15-16, and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights