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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 6/29/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 4-5 and 10 have been amended, and claim 11 has been added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-11 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the independent claims on page 6-8:
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of DSPORT is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, DSPORT can be considered reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned in that it pertains to the manner that bearing mechanisms for interfacing with a rotating rod of a linear drive mechanism receives the rotating rod within a space defined by the shape of the bearing mechanism to support engagement of the rotating rod and linear driving.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of DSPORT does not teach bearing portion having an elongated hole shape as claimed such that “the claimed elongated hole shape provides a mechanical sliding clearance that allows the shaft member and nut member to self-align during movement of the screw portion”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants’ arguments have not provided reasons why DSPORT’s oval shaped bearing is considered not to teach the claimed elongate hole shape.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, DSPORT is clear on page 2 that it advantageous for a bearing to have an eccentric -or oval- shape in that it accommodates defects in a received rod or its journal due to poor machining. Further DSPORT is clear on page 2-3+5 that it advantageous for a bearing to have an eccentric -or oval- shape in that it promotes the accommodation of lubricating media -or oil-, whose presence in a drive system is desirable for promoting the longevity of a drive system by minimizing friction between contacting components.
Applicant argues that applying the prior art teachings of DSPORT – particularly those pertaining to the teaching that when the oval shaped bearings are under tension the oval distorts so as to be more round such that a hydrodynamic state of lubricant is improved, see DSPORT page 2-3 – to the disclosure of Thomas would render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose because as applicant alleges “allowing a pivot or bearing structure to distort under tension would introduce looseness, backlash, and positional error, thereby compromising accurate control of the syringe plunger”.
Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence grounded in the teachings/disclosure of the prior art of DSPORT, nor the disclosure of the prior art of Thomas which DSPORT’s teachings are incorporated into, that such a distortion of a bearing would result in a looseness, backlash, or positional error of the nut/bearing-rod drive system. Rather applicant merely imagines and alleges that these possible deficiencies could result from the proposed combination. Examiner notes that such alleged deficiencies in design could also lead to the same errors in engagement between a rod and bearing system during the reported intended use case of DSPORT, of automotive drive system bearings; an intended use case where precision and repeatability of drive elements is also extraordinarily desirable considering a shaft received in a bearing of an automotive drive system may be subjected to a number of rotations per minute typically measured on scales of 100s to 10000s. For instance, a positional failure of a rotating rod-bearing interface in such a use case could disrupt the mechanisms by which the thread rotates, such as the piston of an internal combustion engine, in a manner which damages the mechanism or results in a catastrophically uneven/unexpected fatigue pattern on the rotating rod.
Further, as discussed in MPEP2143.01(V), a modification to invention based on the teachings of the prior art may have simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. Accordingly, even if the prior art of DSPORT did teach/disclose the supposed deficiencies of this design, and considering the prior art of Thomas does not exclude this design, the stated advantages of the design improving the hydrodynamic state of lubricant and accommodating poorly machined components are still considered obvious motivations to the combine the prior art and the manner stated in the preceding and present office action.
Accordingly, the prior art rejection of record stands as presented in the preceding and present office action.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims on page 9:
Applicant argues that their preceding arguments render the independent claims allowable, and consequently likewise the dependent claims are allowable.
See examiner's discussion of applicant’s arguments above which support the prior art rejection of the independent claims, and for at least that reason, the reasoning why the dependent claims do not constitute allowable subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190224408 A1, henceforth written as Thomas, in view of “DSPORT Performance and Tech Magazine, "The Science Behind Modern Performance Engine Bearings | Simple Complexity", PAGE 2, URL: https://dsportmag.com/the-tech/the-science-behind-modern-performance-engine-bearings-simple-complexity/2/, 21OCT2015”, henceforth written as DSPORT.
Regarding Claim 1,
Thomas discloses:
A drive device comprising:
(device 1; fig 1-7)
a feed screw configured to rotate about a central axis;
(paragraph 49; drive rod 14 rotates about R1; fig 2; see examiner's annotation of Thomas' fig 2 and fig 3, below, illustrating the claimed axes and direction)
and a guided member configured to be guided in an axial direction along the central axis;
(pusher 12 and drive element 13 constitute the claimed guided member, and move in pushing direction P along axis R1; fig 2)
wherein the guided member comprises at least one nut member
(paragraph 47; clutch elements 130ab each constituting half nuts; fig 2-3)
having a screw portion screwed with the feed screw;
(paragraph 47; which spans the drive rod receptacle 132 of each clutch element 130a 130b is considered the claimed screw portion; fig 3)
wherein: in a transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the screw portion is configured to move in both a first direction toward the central axis and a second direction intersecting the first direction;
(fig 3 and examiner's annotated figure, below, demonstrate that the claimed screw portion demonstrates that as clutch elements 130ab move in the clutch direction C, the claimed screw portion moves in both a first direction toward the axis of the second direction to narrow a gap between receptacles 132 and secure around rod 14, and move in the second direction by rotating down around drive rod 14)
the at least one nut member has a bearing portion configured to turn the screw portion such that, in the transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the screw portion moves in the first direction;
(paragraph 58; each clutch element 130a 130b has a bearing hole (not enumerated) for pivotably connecting the clutch element 130a 130b about pivot axis 134, therein being configured to turn rod receptacle 132 disposed on the pivoted clutch element 130a 130b; fig 3-4)
PNG
media_image1.png
707
1269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thomas discloses the elements of the present claim, as described above. Yet, its present embodiment is silent on:
in the transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the bearing portion has an elongated hole shape that is elongated in the second direction.
However DSPORT teaches bearings for drive system wherein:
It is advantageous for a bearing of a drive system to be engineered to be shorter in the areas where the largest force is transmitted, thus the bearing has an oval -or elongated in a second direction- shape, such that under extreme loading the oval may deform to be slightly rounder and avoid metal to metal contact by permitting a hydrodynamic state of oil flow between the moving parts. Additionally, the eccentricity of this shape permits accommodation of rods received within the bearing which are not properly machined to be in an ideal tolerance/size relative to the bearing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement DSPORT’s teachings of an oval shaped bearing improving the reception of threaded drive rods and permitting improved oil lubricant hydrodynamics to the bearing of Thomas, such that Thomas’ bearing portion is oval shaped and lubricated so as to be elongated in the claimed second direction, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which avoids metal-to-metal contact under extreme loading and lubricates contacting components upon relative rotation, therein improving the fatigue resistance of the invention and the longevity of its components over its entire lifecycle, as well as accommodating rods of varied manufactured tolerances.
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The drive device according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one nut member a first nut member and a second nut member;
Thomas: (paragraph 47; clutch element 130a 130b)
and the screw portions of the first nut member and the second nut member are arranged so as to sandwich the feed screw.
Thomas: (fig 3-7 illustrate the receptacle 132 of clutch element 130a 130b mate with either side of drive rod 14)
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The drive device according to claim 3, wherein, the guided member has a shaft member received by both of the bearing portions of the first nut member and the second nut member.
Thomas: (paragraph 58; frame member 131 has an element (not enumerated) for pivotably connecting clutch elements 130a 130b at, and permitting rotation about, a common pivot axis 134; fig 3-7)
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The drive device according to claim 4, wherein: the guided member comprises a housing to which the shaft member is attached and that accommodates the first nut member and the second nut member.
Thomas: (housing of frame 131 accommodates clutch elements 130ab within it, and fig 3-7 demonstrate the attachment of the element spanning pivot axis 134 to frame 131)
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The drive device according to claim 1, further comprising: a switching member configured to switch a position of the screw portion between
Thomas: (cam element 18; fig 4-7)
(i) a screwing position in which the screw portion is screwed with the feed screw, and (ii) a non- screwing position in which the screw portion is not screwed with the feed screw.
Thomas: (paragraph 63-65; clutching device 13 is switched from a clutched to unclutched position via cam element 18, where clutch elements 130a 130b have and haven't screwed with drive rod 14; fig 3-7)
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The drive device according to claim 6, wherein: the switching member comprises a cam configured to slide with respect to the at least one nut member.
Thomas: (fig 7 demonstrates that cam body portion 182, of cam 18, slides relative to clutch elements 130a 130b)
Regarding Claim 8,
Thomas discloses:
A medical infusion pump comprising: a drive device comprising:
(paragraph 3+41; device 1, of the embodiment of fig 4-7, for infusing a syringe 2 containing medical fluid; best illustrated in the whole by fig 1)
a feed screw configured to rotate about a central axis;
(paragraph 49; drive rod 14 rotates about R1; fig 2; see examiner's annotation of Thomas' fig 2 and fig 3 illustrating the claimed axes and direction, above)
and a guided member configured to be guided in an axial direction along the central axis;
(pusher 12 and drive element 13 constitute the claimed guided member, and move in pushing direction P along axis R1; fig 2)
wherein the guided member comprises at least one nut member
(paragraph 47; clutch elements 130ab each constituting half nuts; fig 2-3)
having a screw portion screwed with the feed screw,
(paragraph 47; which spans the drive rod receptacle 132 of each clutch element 130a 130b is considered the claimed screw portion; fig 3)
wherein: in a transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the screw portion is configured to move in both a first direction toward the central axis and a second direction intersecting the first direction;
(fig 3 and examiner's annotated figure, above, demonstrate that the claimed screw portion demonstrates that as clutch elements 130ab move in the clutch direction C, the claimed screw portion moves in both a first direction toward the axis of the second direction to narrow a gap between receptacles 132 and secure around rod 14, and move in the second direction by rotating down around drive rod 14)
the at least one nut member has a bearing portion configured to turn the screw portion such that, in the transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the screw portion moves in the first direction;
(paragraph 58; each clutch element 130a 130b has a bearing hole (not enumerated) for pivotably connecting the clutch element 130a 130b about pivot axis 134, therein being configured to turn rod receptacle 132 disposed on the pivoted clutch element 130a 130b; fig 3-4)
Thomas discloses the elements of the present claim, as described above. Yet, its present embodiment is silent on:
in the transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the bearing portion has an elongated hole shape that is elongated in the second direction.
However DSPORT teaches bearings for drive system wherein:
It is advantageous for a bearing of a drive system to be engineered to be shorter in the areas where the largest force is transmitted, thus the bearing has an oval -or elongated in a second direction- shape, such that under extreme loading the oval may deform to be slightly rounder and avoid metal to metal contact by permitting a hydrodynamic state of oil flow between the moving parts. Additionally, the eccentricity of this shape permits accommodation of rods received within the bearing which are not properly machined to be in an ideal tolerance/size relative to the bearing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement DSPORT’s teachings of an oval shaped bearing improving the reception of threaded drive rods and permitting improved oil lubricant hydrodynamics to the bearing of Thomas, such that Thomas’ bearing portion is oval shaped and lubricated so as to be elongated in the claimed second direction, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which avoids metal-to-metal contact under extreme loading and lubricates contacting components upon relative rotation, therein improving the fatigue resistance of the invention and the longevity of its components over its entire lifecycle, as well as accommodating rods of varied manufactured tolerances.
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The medical infusion pump according to claim 8, further comprising: a case
Thomas: (housing 10 of the embodiment of fig 4-7, best illustrated in fig 1)
that comprises a placement unit configured to receive a syringe that comprises a syringe body and a plunger;
Thomas: (paragraph 43; fixation device 110 receives syringe 2; fig 1)
wherein the guided member comprises a pressing portion configured to press the plunger of the syringe.
Thomas: (fig 1, demonstrates that push device 12 has a surface (not enumerated) which presses against piston 21)
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses:
The drive device according to claim 1, wherein: the guided member comprises a shaft member received by the bearing portion;
Thomas: (frame member 131, an element of drive element 13 which is itself an element of the claimed guided member, has a hole at pivot axis 134 to receive a rod element (not enumerated), therein the claimed shaft member, for pivotably connecting clutch elements 130a 130b at, and permitting rotation about, a common pivot axis 134; fig 3-7)
the elongated hole shape of the bearing portion has a short axis and a long axis orthogonal to each other; and the short axis has a length corresponding to a gap fitting with the shaft member, and the long axis has a length exceeding the length of the short axis.
Examiner notes that in light of the modification of Thomas in view of DSPORT above, the bearing portion of each of Thomas’ nut members is modified by the teachings of DSPORT such that it comprises an oval shape having the claimed axes with the claimed corresponding relative lengths, see examiner's annotation of DSPORT's page 5 figure, below, denoting the claimed axes and their relative lengths having the claimed relationship.
PNG
media_image2.png
587
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of DSPort, and further in view of US 4939946 A, henceforth written as Teramachi.
Regarding Claim 10,
Thomas discloses:
A drive device comprising:
(device 1; fig 1-7)
a feed screw configured to rotate about a central axis;
(paragraph 49; drive rod 14 rotates about R1; fig 2; see examiner's annotation of Thomas' fig 2 and fig 3 illustrating the claimed axes and direction)
a motor configured to rotate the feed screw;
(paragraph 49; electric drive motor 141 rotates drive rod 14; fig 2)
a guide member
(the claimed guide member comprises at least guide device 120, rod 14, and spindle 160, best illustrated by fig 2)
comprising a plurality of rod members extending in an axial direction along the central axis,
(fig 2 showing rod 14 and spindle 160 extending along axis R1)
and a guide tube portion;
(paragraph 44; guide device 120 constitutes the claimed guide tube portion; fig 1)
and a guided member configured to be guided by the guide member in the axial direction, wherein the guided member comprises:
(pusher 12 and drive element 13 constitute the claimed guided member, and move in pushing direction P along axis R1; fig 2)
a housing configured to slide with respect to the plurality of rod members,
(frame member 131; fig 2-3)
an end member comprising a pressing portion configured to press a plunger of a syringe,
(See fig 1, pusher device 12 has a surface (not enumerated) which presses against piston 21)
a -- shaft configured to slide with respect to the guide tube portion,
(paragraph 44+46; connecting rod 121 move in pushing direction P relative to claimed guide tube portion; fig 1-2)
wherein a first end of the -- shaft is connected to the housing, and a second end of the -- shaft is connected to the end member,
(fig 2 best illustrates rod 121 being connected to frame member 131 and pushing surface (not enumerated) of device 12)
and a first nut member and a second nut member,
(paragraph 47; clutch elements 130ab each constituting half nuts; fig 2-3)
each having a screw portion screwed with the feed screw;
(paragraph 47; which spans the drive rod receptacle 132 of each clutch element 130a 130b is considered the claimed screw portion; fig 3)
wherein: in a transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, each screw portion is configured to move in both a respective first direction toward the central axis and a respective second direction intersecting the first direction;
(fig 3 and examiner's annotated figure, below, demonstrate that the claimed screw portion demonstrates that as clutch elements 130ab move in the clutch direction C, the claimed screw portion moves in both a first direction toward the axis of the second direction to narrow a gap between receptacles 132 and secure around rod 14, and move in the second direction by rotating down around drive rod 14)
each of the first nut member and the second nut member has a bearing portion configured to turn the screw portion such that, in the transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, the screw portion moves in the first direction;
(paragraph 58; each clutch element 130a 130b has a bearing hole (not enumerated) for pivotably connecting the clutch element 130a 130b about pivot axis 134, therein being configured to turn rod receptacle 132 disposed on the pivoted clutch element 130a 130b; fig 3-4)
Thomas discloses the elements of the present claim, as described above. Yet, its present embodiment is silent on:
and in the transverse plane orthogonal to the central axis, each bearing portion of the first nut member and the second nut member has an elongated hole shape that is elongated in the second direction
However DSPORT teaches bearings for drive system wherein:
It is advantageous for a bearing of a drive system to be engineered to be shorter in the areas where the largest force is transmitted, thus the bearing has an oval -or elongated in a second direction- shape, such that under extreme loading the oval may deform to be slightly rounder and avoid metal to metal contact by permitting a hydrodynamic state of oil flow between the moving parts. Additionally, the eccentricity of this shape permits accommodation of rods received within the bearing which are not properly machined to be in an ideal tolerance/size relative to the bearing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement DSPORT’s teachings of an oval shaped bearing improving the reception of threaded drive rods and permitting improved oil lubricant hydrodynamics to the bearing of Thomas, such that Thomas’ bearing portion is oval shaped and lubricated so as to be elongated in the claimed second direction, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which avoids metal-to-metal contact under extreme loading and lubricates contacting components upon relative rotation, therein improving the fatigue resistance of the invention and the longevity of its components over its entire lifecycle, as well as accommodating rods of varied manufactured tolerances.
The modified invention of Thomas in view of DSPORT discloses the elements of the present claim, as described above. Yet, its present embodiment is silent on:
a hollow shaft configured to slide
However, Teramachi teaches a motion guide device
a hollow shaft configured to slide
(col 5 line 30-33; "shaft member 21 is a hollow rod -- so that its weight and, hence, influence of inertia at the times of start and stop are reduced"; fig 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hollow shaft teachings of Teramachi to the shaft disclosed by Thomas in order to advantageously arrive at sliding shaft which has reduced weighed and therein reduced “influence of inertia at the times of start and stop”, see col 5 line 30-33 of Teramachi and MPEP 2144.02.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FORREST DIPERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm eastern.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/FORREST B DIPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights