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 .
Summary
Claims 1-9 are pending. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment dated 31 Aug 2025. Please note that the arguments submitted in the After-Final Response dated 16 Jan 2026 are persuasive and the Final Rejection dated 16 Oct 2025 is accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. The Examiner agrees with the analysis set forth on pages 5-8 of the After-Final Response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by LISTER (GB 2039793).
Regarding claim 1: LISTER discloses: A lubricating oil supply device (FIG. 1) for supplying a lubricating oil to a bearing (This is a statement of intended use. Any lubricant sprayer that is used to spray lubricant on “machinery,” as stated in the abstract, can be used to lubricate a bearing.), comprising: a supplier (11) provided with a first storage (all oil contained in the oil inlet 12 of the supplier 11) for storing the lubricating oil, and configured to supply the lubricating oil stored in the first storage to the bearing together with compressed air (page 1 line 126-page 2 line 4); a lubricating oil supply path (from 14 to 12) having one end portion connected to the first storage (at 12) and the other end portion connected to a second storage (13) for storing the lubricating oil; a deliverer (adjustable metering screw 16 cooperating with passage 15) provided in the lubricating oil supply path (FIG. 1), and configured to deliver the lubricating oil stored in the second storage via the lubricating oil supply path to fill the first storage with the lubricating oil (FIG. 1); an air supply path (9) having one end portion connected to the supplier (at 10) and the other end portion connected to a compressed air supplier (at “COMP. AIR”) for supplying the compressed air; and a pressure accumulator (1) provided in the air supply path and configured to accumulate the compressed air (page 2 lines 18-37), wherein the supplier is further configured to be supplied with the compressed air from the pressure accumulator (FIG. 1) and mix the lubricating oil stored in the first storage and the supplied compressed air (at Venturi 11) to thereby supply the lubricating oil to the bearing together with the compressed air (page 2 lines 43-54).
Regarding claim 2: LISTER discloses: the supplier is configured to generate an oil air (abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISTER in view of BYSTRICKY et al. (US 3,302,980).
Regarding claim 3: LISTER discloses an oil air mixture for lubrication, but does not specify that it is an oil mist.
BYSTRICKY however does teach an oil mist (col. 1 lines 19-32) on their lubrication system (col. 1 lines 19-32) that also has an accumulator in the air supply (col. 3 lines 12-22).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use an air mist system as taught BYSTRICKY as the oil-air mixture of LISTER because it economically uses oil to keep moving parts lubricated.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISTER in view of YOKOTA et al. (US 2014/0190784).
Regarding claims 4 and 6: LISTER discloses: a valve (2) in the air supply path (FIG. 1), but the valve of LISTER is either mechanical (FIG. 1) or pneumatic (FIG. 2).
YOKOTA however does teach an electromagnetic valve (solenoid valve 52) which is downstream of an accumulator (51 in FIG. 1) and is normally open such that in the event of loss of power the pressure in the accumulator will still supply pressure (abstract; para. 13).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the solenoid valve of YOKOTA on the lubrication system of LISTER so that if power is lost, the supplier will still have pressure to function (abstract; para. 13 of YOKOTA). Furthermore, because all three types of valve (mechanical, pneumatic, and electromagnetic) are known, using one over another is “Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results” (see MPEP 2143 B). In the present case, the known elements are different types of valve, and the predictable results are that the air supply path will be selectively opened and closed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISTER in view of TADASHI (JP 2019028041 A). Please note that a machine translation of TADASHI was included in the office action dated 03 June 2025. All references to text in TADASHI are to that machine translation.
Regarding claims 5: LISTER does not disclose a rotation test apparatus.
TADASHI however does teach a rotation test apparatus (FIG. 1) provided with the lubricating oil supply device of claim 1 (The limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above.) and configured to perform a rotation test for a specimen (abstract), comprising: a rotary body (dynamo 11); an intermediate shaft (31) configured to connect the specimen (2) and the rotary body (11); a bearing (32, 33) configured to rotatably support the intermediate shaft (FIG. 1); and a torque detector (41) configured to detect a torque generated between the specimen and the rotary body (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the lubricant supply device of LISTER on the specimen tester of TADASHI because it provides for controlled spraying that targets areas that need lubrication without wasting lubricant. Furthermore, one skilled in the art would be motivated to use the motor tester of TADASHI with the lubrication apparatus of LISTER because it allows motors to be tested (page 1 lines 40-43 of TADASHI).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISTER and YOKOTA in view of TADASHI.
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISTER and BYSTRICKY in view of YOKOTA.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISTER, BYSTRICKY, and YOKOTA in view of TADASHI.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
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 J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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 J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896