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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“plurality of rolling elements” recited in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “plurality of rolling elements” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“elements”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“rolling” or ‘configured to roll’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “plurality of rolling elements” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of rolling cylinders,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 25), or an equivalent thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a worm gear ... driven by the drive device to rotate” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “an improved index plate structure.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘driving the drive device to rotate a worm gear,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating an index plate structure,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘worm gear,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘index plate structure’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a worm gear ... configured to be driven by the drive device to rotate.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the rollers being driven by the worm gear ...” in the sixth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “an improved index plate structure.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘driving the rollers by the worm gear,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating an index plate structure,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘plurality of rollers,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘index plate structure’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the plurality of rollers being configured to be driven by the worm gear ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the retainers each ...” in the seventh paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one, two, or all of the ‘first radial rolling element retainer,’ the ‘second radial rolling element retainer,’ or the ‘axial rolling element retainer,’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to ‘retainers’ other than those previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the first radial rolling element retainer, the second radial rolling element retainer, and the axial rolling element retainer ...”
Claim 1 further recites “the outer ring driving the working disk to rotate” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “an improved index plate structure.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘driving the outer ring to rotate the working disk,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating an index plate structure,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘outer ring,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘index plate structure’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the outer ring being configured to drive the working disk to rotate.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, Tatsuda (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0319487) teaches an improved index plate structure (abstract), comprising: a hollow base (figures 1 and 2, element 3 being the ‘hollow base’; paragraph 57), including a drive unit therein (paragraph 59, wherein the ‘motor’ is the ‘drive unit’); a worm gear, disposed in the base and configured to be driven by the drive device to rotate (figures 1 and 2, element 21 being the ‘worm gear’; paragraph 59); a bearing device, disposed in the base, the bearing device including a first retaining seat, a second retaining seat, and a rotary disk (figures 1 and 2, element 23 being the ‘first retaining seat,’ element 24 being the ‘second retaining seat,’ and element 20 being the ‘axial retaining seat’; paragraphs 59 and 62 – 64); a working disk, extending out of the base, the working disk being fixed to one end of the rotary disk (figures 1 and 2, element 5 being the ‘working disk’; paragraph 59); the first retaining seat and the second retaining seat being fixed in the base as an inner ring of the bearing device (figures 1 and 2, elements 23, 24, and 3; paragraphs 70 – 71); the rotary disk forming an outer ring of the bearing device (figures 1 and 2, element 20), the rotary disk having a radial surface locked and connected to the working disk (figures 1 and 2, top surface of element 20 being the ‘radial surface of the rotary disk,’ see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tatsuda further teaches a plurality of rollers being pivotally connected to the rotary disk, the rollers extending outwardly and being spaced equally and arranged radially, the rollers being configured to be driven by the worm gear to rotate the rotary disk and drive the working disk (figures 1 and 2, radially outer surface of element 20 being the ‘plurality of rollers’; paragraph 59).
However, Tatsuda does not teach, either expressly or implicitly, a first radial rolling element retainer, a second radial rolling element retainer opposite to the first radial rolling element retainer, and an axial rolling element retainer located between the first radial rolling element retainer and the second radial rolling element retainer being disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring of the bearing device; each of the first radial rolling element retainer, the second radial rolling element retainer, and the axial rolling element retainer having a plurality of rolling elements, the plurality of rolling elements being in contact with the rotary disk, as recited by claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights