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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 13, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premo (2267043) in view of Lautenschlager (4752143).
Regarding claim 1, Premo teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (12); a second component (5); and a sliding member (16) disposed between the first and second components; and a retention system (10 & 13-15) adapted to retain the sliding member between the first component and the second component, wherein the retention system comprises a retention frame (10) and at least one spring element (15), wherein the sliding member is disposed between the retention frame and the spring element (Figs. 1 & 4), wherein the spring element provides a biasing force on the sliding member (implied by Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 4, lines 15-16). Premo fail(s) to teach cylindrical sliding members. However, Lautenschlager teaches a sliding member (29) that comprises an elongated cylinder (29 - see col. 2, lines 21-22) having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defines an aspect ratio, as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1 (see Figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a sliding member, as taught by Lautenschlager, for each of the sliding members of Premo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the first & second components to slide relative to each other, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known sliding means for another.
Regarding claim 2, Premo as modified teaches a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (12 of Premo); a second component (5 of Premo); and a plurality of sliding members (29 of Lautenschlager) disposed between the first and second components; and a retention system comprising a plurality of spring elements (15 of Premo), wherein a first spring element (i.e., one of 15 of Premo) of the plurality of spring elements provides a first biasing force on a first sliding member (i.e., one of 29 of Lautenschlager) of the plurality of sliding members, and a second spring element (i.e., another of 15 of Premo) of the plurality of spring elements provides a second biasing force on a second sliding member (i.e., another of 29 of Lautenschlager) of the plurality of sliding members, wherein the first biasing force is independent from the second biasing force (implied by Fig. 1 of Premo, showing each of 15 of Premo being spaced from the others), and wherein the each sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) in the plurality of sliding members comprise an elongated cylinder (as in col. 2, lines 21-22 of Lautenschlager) having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defines an aspect ratio, as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1 (as in the Figure of Lautenschlager).
Regarding claim 3, Premo teaches a spring element (15) that comprises a plurality of spring elements (15).
Regarding claim 4, Premo as modified teaches a spring element (15 of Premo) that contacts a sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) and at least one of (Figs. 1 & 4 of Premo) the first component (12 of Premo) or the second component (5 of Premo).
Regarding claim 5, Premo as modified teaches a spring element (15 of Premo) that contacts the sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) and both of (Figs. 1 & 4 of Premo) the first component (12 of Premo) and the second component (5 of Premo).
Regarding claim 6, Premo teaches a spring element (15) fixed (via 13) to the first component (12).
Regarding claim 7, Premo teaches a spring element (15) that fits within a bore (i.e., hole containing 13) of the first component (12).
Regarding claim 8, Premo as modified teaches a retention frame (10 of Premo) that comprises a plurality of openings (Fig. 1 of Premo), each opening adapted to house at least one sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager).
Regarding claim 9, Premo teaches a retention frame (10) fixed to a first component (12).
Regarding claims 11-12, Premo as modified teaches a sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) and a first component (12 of Premo) adapted to longitudinally translate (implied by Figs. 1 & 3-4 and col. 1, lines 1-4 of Premo) with respect to a second component (5 of Premo).
Regarding claim 13, Premo teaches a second component (5) adapted to longitudinally translate (implied by Figs. 1 & 3-4 and col. 1, lines 1-4) with respect to a first component (12).
Regarding claim 18, Premo teaches a first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 15) that is the same (implied by use of “15” to label each of the springs, which implies that they are identical to each other) as a second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 15).
Regarding claim 19, Premo teaches at least one spring element (15) that is a coil spring (15). See Figs. 1 & 4.
Claims 1-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paillet (EP1167790) in view of Lautenschlager (4752143).
Regarding claim 1, Paillet teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (6); a second component (4); and a sliding member (36) disposed between the first and second components (Fig. 1); and a retention system (26, 30, 40) adapted to retain the sliding member between the first component and the second component (Fig. 1), wherein the retention system comprises a retention frame (38) and at least one spring element (26), wherein the sliding member is disposed between the retention frame and the spring element (Fig. 1), wherein the spring element provides a biasing force on the sliding member (par. 31 & 34). Paillet fail(s) to teach cylindrical sliding members. However, Lautenschlager teaches a sliding member (29) that comprises an elongated cylinder (29 - see col. 2, lines 21-22) having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defines an aspect ratio, as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1 (see Figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a sliding member, as taught by Lautenschlager, for each of the sliding members of Paillet, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the first & second components to slide relative to each other, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known sliding means for another.
Regarding claim 2, Paillet as modified teaches a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (6 of Paillet); a second component (4 of Paillet); and a plurality of sliding members (29 of Lautenschlager) disposed between the first and second components (Fig. 1 of Paillet); and a retention system comprising a plurality of spring elements (26 of Paillet), wherein a first spring element (i.e., one of 26 of Paillet) of the plurality of spring elements provides a first biasing force (par. 31 & 34 of Paillet) on a first sliding member (i.e., one of 29 of Lautenschlager) of the plurality of sliding members, and a second spring element (i.e., another of 26 of Paillet) of the plurality of spring elements provides a second biasing force (par. 31 & 34 of Paillet) on a second sliding member (i.e., another of 29 of Lautenschlager) of the plurality of sliding members, wherein the first biasing force is independent from the second biasing force (implied Fig. 1 of Paillet, showing separation between each of 26 of Paillet).
Regarding claim 3, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) that comprises a plurality of spring elements (26). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Paillet as modified teaches a spring element (26 of Paillet) that contacts a sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) and at least one (Fig. 1 of Paillet) of the first component (6 of Paillet) or the second component (4 of Paillet).
Regarding claim 5, Paillet as modified teaches a spring element (26 of Paillet) that contacts a sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) and both (Fig. 1 of Paillet) of the first component (6 of Paillet) and the second component (4 of Paillet).
Regarding claim 6, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) fixed to a first component (6).
Regarding claim 7, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) that fits within a bore (12) of the first component.
Regarding claim 8, Paillet as modified teaches a retention frame (38 of Paillet) that comprises a plurality of openings (Fig. 2 of Paillet), each opening adapted to house at least one sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager).
Regarding claim 9, Paillet teaches a retention frame (38) fixed to a first component (6). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, Paillet as modified teaches a first component (6 of Paillet) that has a concave exterior surface (12 of Paillet) adapted to house (Fig. 1 of Paillet) the sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager).
Regarding claims 11-12, Paillet as modified teaches a sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) & a first component (6 of Paillet) adapted to longitudinally translate (par. 29 & 35 of Paillet) with respect to a second component (4 of Paillet).
Regarding claim 13, Paillet teaches a second component (4) adapted to longitudinally translate (par. 35) with respect to a first component (6).
Regarding claim 14, Paillet as modified teaches a sliding member (29 of Lautenschlager) that comprises a slide pin (29 of Lautenschlager).
Regarding claim 15, Paillet as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a spring element (26 of Paillet) that provides a biasing force on at least one of the plurality of sliding members (29 of Lautenschlager). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the biasing force of each of the spring element 10N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Paillet as modified teaches unspecified first & second biasing forces. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the first biasing force 15N & the second biasing force 10N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, Paillet as modified teaches unspecified first & second biasing forces. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the first biasing force 10N & the second biasing force 15N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Paillet teaches a first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 26) that is the same (implied by use of “26” to label each of the springs, which implies that they are identical to each other) as a second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 26).
Regarding claim 20, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) that is an elastomeric material (par. 23, 40, & 43) providing a biasing force while compressed (par. 31 & 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “routine optimization of the spring element and biasing forces on at least one of the plurality of sliding members” would not be obvious, because “the motion dynamics of a roller ball and an elongated cylinder/sliding pin differ” (Remarks at 8). This argument, however, fails to elaborate on how in the dynamics of a cylinder differs from the dynamics of a ball. Nor does applicant explain why these alleged differences supposedly render routine optimization of the first & second spring biasing forces of Paillet as modified non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights