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 .
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.
Claims 23 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoltan (EP 2020/249628, see US 11,852,218 for English translation) in view of Übele et al. (DE 102008017922).
Regarding claim 23, Zoltan discloses and shows at Fig. 2 a spindle assembly for a spindle device, comprising:
a spindle nut 20 configured for being brought into threaded engagement with a spindle rod 18; and
a tube 8 extending axially along a longitudinal axis;
wherein the tube at least in a section encircles the spindle nut radially and the spindle nut and the tube overlap in an axial overlap region,
wherein the spindle nut and the tube are “connected” to one another in an inner region of the axial overlap region (col. 6:13-15),
wherein the spindle nut is arranged at a first open end of the tube and wherein the spindle nut protrudes from the first open end of the tube.
Zoltan does not specify how the spindle nut and tube are connected together. Ubele teaches the laser welding (Abstract) of a first member to a second member in an inner region of an axial overlap region, the weld provides a rigid connection between the two members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zoltan device to where the nut and tube are axially secured to one another by laser welding, providing a rigid connection thereto.
Cl. 32 – the spindle nut is arranged concentrically about the longitudinal axis of the tube (Zoltan).
Cl. 33 – the spindle nut and the tube touch in the axial overlap region (Zoltan).
Cl. 34 – a frictional connection exists between the spindle nut and the tube in the overlap region (Zoltan).
Claims 25-29 and 35-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoltan in view of Übele, as applied to claims 23 and 32-34, and further in view of Scheuring (US 2020/0165856).
Zohan and Ubele disclose and show the invention of claims 23 and 32-34 as described elsewhere above.
Regarding claim 25, Zohan does not specify the material makeup of the spindle nut or tube. Scheuring discloses a spindle device where the nut 38 is welded to a tube 32 (para. 0062), the nut being made of plastic as a weight saving measure (para. 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the nut made of plastic in an effort to save weight as taught by Scheuring.
Cl. 26 – the spindle nut is made of a laser-nontransparent plastic at least at an outer circumference (Übele, para. 0028).
Cl. 27 – the tube is made at least in sections of a plastic (Übele, outer member is formed of plastic).
Cl. 28 – the tube is made entirely plastic (Übele, outer member is formed of plastic).
Cl. 29 – the tube is made of a laser-transparent plastic (Übele, para. 0028).
Cl. 35 – the spindle nut and the tube are connected to one another in the overlap region via at least one first welding point (Übele, Fig. 2).
Cl. 36 – the spindle nut and the tube are connected to one another in the overlap region via a second welding point spaced apart from the first welding point (Übele, Fig. 2).
Cl. 37 – Übele neither discloses nor shows the first welding point provided in a central axial portion of the overlap region. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the first welding point provided at a central axial portion of the overlap region with the first welding point provided at any other portion of the overlap region as the two arrangements are equivalents in the art and the selection of either would have been well within the level of skill in the art.
Cl. 38 – the spindle nut and the tube are connected to one another in the overlap region via an elongate welding seam (Übele, Fig. 2).
Cl. 39 – the welding seam extends at least partly around an outer circumference of the spindle nut (Übele, para. 0028).
Cl. 40 – the welding seam is designed to be annular and extends around an entire outer circumference of the spindle nut (Übele, para. 0028).
Cl. 41 – the welding seam extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tube (Übele, Fig. 1, for example).
Cl. 42 – more than one welding seam is provided, via which the spindle nut and the tube are connected to one another in the overlap region (Übele, Fig. 2, for example).
Cl. 43 – the spindle nut is held axially in place solely by the welding (Zoltan shows the tube fixed to the nut that, in the rejection at claim 23, has been modified and replaced with a weld).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds.
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 BOBBY RUSHING, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/BOBBY RUSHING, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights