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 .
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 03/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7-110442 (hereafter—JP’442--) in view of CN 211145140 (hereafter—CN’140--).
In regards to claim 1, JP’442 discloses a spindle device (Figure 3) comprising: a rotation shaft (2); a bearing housing (11) having a cylindrical shape extending in a direction of a center axis of the rotation shaft; a bearing (12, 13) attached to an inner peripheral surface of the bearing housing (11) and rotatably supporting the rotation shaft (2); and a first sealing member (refer to the sealing member between cover A and bearing housing 11), wherein a first flow path (one of the flow paths 17, closest to 16 in Figure 3) and a second flow path (another one of the flow paths 17 in the middle of 11, between elements 16 and 18) are formed inside the bearing housing (11), each of the first flow path and the second flow path extending in a direction of a center axis of the bearing housing (see Figure 3), a first groove (one of the grooves radially outwards going towards cover A) is formed (at least a portion thereof) in an outer peripheral surface of the bearing housing (11), the first groove extending (at least a portion thereof) in a peripheral direction of the bearing housing (11), the first groove being connected to the first flow path and the second flow path (Figure 3), and the first sealing member closes an opening of the first groove (see Figure 3), and the spindle device further comprises a first cover (A) attached to the outer peripheral surface of the bearing housing (11) so as to cover the first elastic member (modified JP’442) (see Annotated Figure 3 below for details).
PNG
media_image1.png
1003
1421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP’442 fails to disclose that the first sealing member is elastic.
Nevertheless, CN’140 teaches that it is well known in the art to have a sealing member be elastic, such as a rubber plug.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to substitute JP’442’s sealing member with CN’140 rubber sealing member, as it is a simple substitution of one known sealing member for another, to have a predictable result of sealing a groove.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have the sealing member of JP’442 be made of an elastic material, such as rubber, based on the teachings of CN’140 since it has been held that the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07 (“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
In regards to claim 3, JP’442 as modified discloses the spindle device according to claim 1, JP’442 as modified also discloses a partition is disposed between a portion of the first groove connected to the first flow path and a portion of the first groove connected to the second flow path (see Figure 3).
In regards to claim 8, JP’442 as modified discloses the spindle device according to claim 1, JP’442 as modified also discloses that the bearing is a hydrostatic bearing capable of supporting a load from the rotation shaft in the direction of the center axis of the rotation shaft and a direction orthogonal to the center axis of the rotation shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 7 under 35 USC § 103 over of KR 10-1675535 (hereafter-KR'535--) in view of CN 211145140 (hereafter-CN'140--) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-3 and 8 and their rejection under 35 USC § 103 over of JP 7-110442 (hereafter-JP'442--) in view of CN 211145140 (hereafter-CN'140--) have been carefully and fully considered, and are still deemed proper in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks as best understood, that JP’442 fails to disclose a groove formed in the peripheral surface and extending in the peripheral direction of the bearing housing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as presented requires “a first groove is formed in an outer peripheral surface of the bearing housing, the first groove extending in a peripheral direction of the bearing housing…the first elastic member closes an opening of the first groove”. Since the groove (now annotated in the rejection above for clarification purposes and in a zoomed in version below), extends radially, all the way up and opens at an outermost peripheral surface of the bearing housing 11, where there is a sealing member that closes that opening, then the groove has a radial extent and an axial extent that meets the claimed limitation of being formed in an outer peripheral surface of the housing. It is noted that the limitations do not require that the entirety of the groove to be formed only in an outer peripheral surface of the housing. As such, the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues on page 8 that JP’442 fails to disclose a “cover attached to the outer peripheral surface of the bearing housing so as to cover the first elastic member”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points Applicant to the rejection above for details. Giving broadest reasonable interpretation to the word “cover”1 as being something that is placed over or about another thing; JP’442’s structure A, is placed over the outer peripheral surface of the bearing housing 11, so as to conceal the first elastic member. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded.
Applicant argues on page 8 that JP’442 fails to disclose a “bearing housing” because housing 11 of JP’442 is used to support the shank through radial bearings 12 and 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points Applicant to the rejection above for details. Giving broadest reasonable interpretation to the word “housing”2 as being something that covers or protects: such as a case or enclosure or a support; JP’442’s structure 11, does cover or protect or supports the bearing 12/13. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded and a prima facie case of obviousness has been properly established.
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 NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 COVER Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 HOUSING Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Prosecution Insights