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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-19, drawn to “A spindle assembly”) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Please be advised that claim 20 was canceled by Applicant in the claim set filed on 4/9/2026. Claim 20, prior to being canceled, was directed to non-elected Group II.
Under Category A as pertaining to the embodiment of the flow passages of the outer ring, Applicant's election with traverse of Species (iii) (drawn to “A third embodiment in which flow passages (14F) of the outer ring (10) are conical and are skewed in a tilt direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the outer ring as in Figures 10A-10G and as described in paragraph [0087] of Applicant’s specification”) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s):
Applicant elects, with traverse, the invention of Species A3, which reads on claims 1-5 and 8-19.
With respect to the traverse, Applicant submits that the Office Action has failed to form a prima facie case of burden. Specifically, Applicant submits that the present application discloses various different shapes of the skewed flow passages - where claim 8 is generic to the cross- sectional shape of the passage and relates to the skew or tilt of the passage, not the shape.
For example, the present application discloses that:
"As shown in FIGS. 5, 6A and 6B, the plurality of flow passages 14F each have a substantially cylindrical shape and terminate at a partially closed end 14E. In some embodiments, each of the plurality of flow passages 14F is skewed in a tilt direction depicted by the arrow RR relative to a longitudinal axis L of the outer ring 10 along a tilt axis TL, as shown in FIG. 6B." See at least paragraph [0074].
Reconsideration and withdrawal of the Species election as to Species A is respectfully requested so that all skewed or tilted flow passages are examined together in the present application.
This is not found to be persuasive. With regards to Applicant’s argument concerning search burden, Examiner notes the following. According to MPEP § 808.02.
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required...
Regarding part (B) (which is the part that deals with Applicant’s traversal arguments regarding search burden, MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that:
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Please note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, C was established. On page 6 of the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 2/4/2026, it was established that at the very least, different search queries would be necessary to search the identified inventions. Thus, burden has been properly established. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive. Also, regarding Applicant’s that “claim 8 is generic to the cross-sectional shape of the passage and relates to the skew or tilt of the passage, not the shape,” be advised that dependent claim 8 reads on the elected species and will be examined.
Under Category B as pertaining to the embodiment of the diffuser surface of the outer ring, Applicant's election with traverse of Species (ii) (drawn to “A second embodiment in which the diffuser surface of the outer ring (10) is conical and radially converges as in Figures 6A-6B and as described in paragraph [0077] of Applicant’s specification”) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Under Category C as pertaining to the embodiment of the tubular fluid steam, Applicant's election with traverse of Species (iii) (drawn to “A third embodiment in which the tubular fluid stream is rotating in a direction opposite to a direction of rotation of the spindle as in Figures 6A and 6B, as described in paragraph [0084] of Applicant’s specification”) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Under Category D as pertaining to the embodiment of the inner member, Applicant's election with traverse of Species (i) (drawn to “A first embodiment in which the inner member is an inner ring as in Figure 4 and as described in paragraph [0072] of Applicant’s speciation”) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal for Species (B)(ii), (C)(iii), and D(i) are on the following ground(s):
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species B2, which reads on claims 1-8 and 10-19.
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species C3, which reads on claims 1- 15 and 18-19.
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species D1, which reads on claims 1-4 and 6-18.
With respect to the traversals as to Species B-D, Applicant respectfully requests search and examination of the non-elected Species - which read on claims 5, 9, 16-17, 19, respectively.
It is well established that, if the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden, the Examiner must examine it on the merits, even though it includes claims to independent or distinct inventions. See MPEP 803.
Applicant submits that searching the assemblies of non-elected Species B-D would not impose a serious burden on the Examiner. Further, Applicant submits that prosecution of the claims of the elected and non-elected species together would be the most expedient for the Office and the public. Applicant submits that in order to conduct a complete and thorough search regarding elected claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 18, it would be inherently necessary to review the same pertinent fields and classes of prior art relating to the non-elected species.
Moreover, the important questions of patentability and claim interpretation that may be faced when prosecuting the elected claims may similarly be faced when prosecuting the non-elected species. Combined prosecution is therefore less likely to result in inconsistent or conflicting file histories.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the requirement for restriction with respect to the non-elected claims so that all of the claims pending in the present application can be examined together.
This is not found to be persuasive. With regards to Applicant’s argument concerning search burden, Examiner notes the following. According to MPEP § 808.02.
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required...
Regarding part (B) (which is the part that deals with Applicant’s traversal arguments regarding search burden, MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that:
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Please note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, C was established. On page 6 of the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 2/4/2026, it was established that at the very least, different search queries would be necessary to search the identified inventions. Thus, burden has been properly established. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s argument(s) concerning burden are not found to be persuasive.
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that, “Moreover, the important questions of patentability and claim interpretation that may be faced when prosecuting the elected claims may similarly be faced when prosecuting the non-elected species. Combined prosecution is therefore less likely to result in inconsistent or conflicting file histories,” please be advised of the following.
As can be seen above, Applicant argues that, “the important questions of patentability and claim interpretation that may be faced when prosecuting the elected claims may similarly be faced when prosecuting the non-elected species.” Applicant though, hasn’t specified what specific important questions of patentability and claim interpretation might be faced when prosecuting the non-elected species. In addition, Applicant hasn’t actually specified as to why the potential situation of prosecuting the non-elected species could result in “inconsistent or conflicting file histories.” Noting this, should a future application be filed for prosecuting the non-elected species, that future application will be examined on the merits. This application and the potential application for prosecuting the non-elected species would each have its own prosecution history, and there isn’t any reason to believe that this potential situation would result in “inconsistent or conflicting file histories.” Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s argument(s) are not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the claims that read on elected Group 1 and elected species (A)(iii), (B)(ii), (C)(iii), and D(i), Applicant has on one hand seemingly identified claims 1-4, 8-10, 15, and 18 as reading thereon. This was determined by Examiner in going through the following statements by Applicant:
Applicant elects the invention of Group I, which reads on claims 1-19
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species A3, which reads on claims 1-5 and 8-19.
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species B2, which reads on claims 1-8 and 10-19.
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species C3, which reads on claims 1- 15 and 18-19.
Applicant elects, with traverse, the embodiment of Species D1, which reads on claims 1-4 and 6-18.
Applicant though, then says on page 7 of the arguments filed on 4/9/2026, “Applicant submits that in order to conduct a complete and thorough search regarding elected claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 18, it would be inherently necessary to review the same pertinent fields and classes of prior art relating to the non-elected species.”
So on one hand, Applicant has seemingly identified claims 1-4, 8, 10-15, and 18 as reading on elected Group 1 and elected species (A)(iii), (B)(ii), (C)(iii), and D(i), but then on the other hand, Applicant refers to a “thorough search regarding elected claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 18.”
Noting the above, Examiner has determined that claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 read upon elected Group 1 and elected species (A)(iii), (B)(ii), (C)(iii), and D(i). Regarding claim 7, it is noted that it reads on elected (A)(iii) and on non-elected (A)(ii). Since it reads on (A)(iii), claim 7 will be examined. Regarding claim 6, it reads on non-elected (A)(i) but not additionally on elected (A)(iii), for example. As such, claim 6 will be withdrawn.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/9/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 15 and 16 thereof exhibit poor line quality. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3 and 7 of the claim, each instance of “inner surface” should be changed to “interior surface” so as to match the terminology of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 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.
Lines 3-4 of claim 1 state, “the plurality of flow passages each having an axial inlet.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if the claimed plurality of flow passages have the same axial inlet, or if instead each of the claimed plurality of flow passages has a respective axial inlet, e.g. there is one respective axial inlet corresponding to each individual flow passage.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the tubular fluid stream" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Be advised that claim 1, on which claim 18 directly depends, set forth “a tubular stream” NOT “a tubular fluid steam”.
Lines 1-2 of claim 18 state, “wherein the tubular fluid stream is directed in a direction opposite a direction of rotation of the inner member.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the tubular fluid stream being directed in “a direction opposite a direction of rotation of the inner member.” Please note that paragraph [0084] of Applicant’s specification filed on 9/5/2023 discloses that, “the tubular fluid stream CJ (see FIG. 6C) is rotating in a direction RR opposite to a direction DR of rotation of the spindle.” In Figure 6C though, the tubular fluid stream is simply shown as being tapered, e.g. conical. Noting this, does the tubular fluid stream being directed in “a direction opposite a direction of rotation of the inner member” simply mean that the tubular stream is tapered, e.g. conical? Or does, the tubular fluid stream being directed in “a direction opposite a direction of rotation of the inner member” mean something entirely different?
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 6-7 of claim 1 state, “the inner member being in the outer ring with the exterior surface in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
First, discussion will proceed with respect to the drawings filed on 9/5/2023, and the elected embodiment of Species (i) under Category D (wherein Species (i) is drawn to “A first embodiment in which the inner member is an inner ring as in Figure 4 and as described in paragraph [0072] of Applicant’s specification”). As can best be seen in Figures 2 and 3 of the drawings, an outer surface (26) of the inner member (when the inner member is embodied as the inner ring (20)) is not in contact with the inner/interior surface (14) of the outer ring (10) when the inner ring (20) is disposed in the outer ring (10). (It is noted that Applicant doesn’t refer to the outer surface (26) of the inner ring (20) as the “exterior surface” in the specification. Rather, Applicant only uses “exterior surface” in the specification when it comes to the cutting tool (30) and its tool exterior surface (36), noting the cutting tool (30) is alternatively the inner member).
As can be seen in Figure 1, the inner ring (20) seemingly is able to float within the confines of the outer ring (10), because the cutting tool (30) interfaces with surface 30 (see Figure 4) of the inner ring (20), and further because a proximal end of the cutting tool (30) is supported by a not-identified element that appears to be a collet (see Figure 1). Next, be advised that Figure 6C also shows the inner ring (20) as being disposed in the outer ring (10). However, it cannot be determined from Figure 6C as to whether or not the outer surface (26) of the inner ring (20) is in contact with the inner/interior surface (14) of the outer ring (10). Thus, the drawings filed on 9/5/2023 do not provide support for, “the inner member being in the outer ring with the exterior surface in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring” as it pertains to the elected embodiment of Species (i) under Category D (wherein it is reiterated that Species (i) is drawn to “A first embodiment in which the inner member is an inner ring as in Figure 4 and as described in paragraph [0072] of Applicant’s specification”).
Next, discussion will proceed with respect to the specification filed on 9/5/2023, and the elected embodiment of Species (i) under Category D (wherein Species (i) is drawn to “A first embodiment in which the inner member is an inner ring as in Figure 4 and as described in paragraph [0072] of Applicant’s speciation”). First, please be advised that paragraph [0028] of the specification states the following:
[0028] A spindle assembly is provided that has an outer ring and an inner member. The outer ring has a plurality of flow passages and a diffuser section. The flow passages are defined as open recesses in an inner surface of the outer ring. The flow passages each have an axial inlet and are each in fluid communication with the diffuser section. The inner member has an exterior surface and is in the outer ring with the exterior surface in contact with the inner surface so that fluid flowing from the axial inlet and through the plurality of flow passages discharges as a tubular stream from a circumferential flow area between the exterior surface and the diffuser section.
As can be seen above, Applicant provides disclosure about the exterior surface of the inner member is in the outer ring and “the exterior surface in contact with the inner surface.” Noting this, when it comes to the “exterior surface” of the inner member, it doesn’t appear that at any point within the specification that “exterior surface” is used with respect to the inner member that is embodied as the inner ring (20). At least paragraphs [0009], [0018], [0019], [0073], [0080], and [0081] refer to an outer surface (16) of the inner ring (20), rather than for example, an exterior surface of the inner ring (20).
Noting this, when it comes to the inner member that is embodied as the cutting tool (30), at least paragraphs [0009] and [0072] refer to a tool exterior surface (36) of the cutting tool (30). As such, Applicant has disclosure in the specification for the tool exterior surface (36) of the cutting tool (30) being in contact with the inner/interior surface (14) of the outer ring (10) (and this matches what is shown in at least Figure 7D). The specification though, does not appear to provide disclosure for the outer surface (16) of the inner ring (20) being in contact with the inner/interior surface (14) of the outer ring (10) (and this matches what is shown in at least Figures 1-3 and 6C). Thus, the specification filed on 9/5/2023 does not provide support for, “the inner member being in the outer ring with the exterior surface in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring” as it pertains to the elected embodiment of Species (i) under Category D.
Based on the foregoing, neither the drawings nor the specification demonstrate that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mai (U.S. Patent No. 5,358,360 A).
Please be advised that Mai was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 2/20/2024.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Mai shows a spindle assembly comprising an outer ring (9+12) having a plurality of flow passages (10, 11) and a diffuser section (9). As can be seen in Figure 2, the plurality of flow passages (10, 11) are defined as open recesses within an inner surface of the outer ring (9+12), the plurality of flow passages (10, 11) each having an axial inlet (8) and each (10, 11) being in fluid communication with the diffuser section (9). Please be advised that the “inner surface” of the outer ring (9+12) corresponds to the combination of an interior surface of the diffuser section (9) of the outer ring (9+12) and an interior surface of a spindle nut body (12) of the outer ring (9+12).
The spindle assembly of Mai further comprises an inner member (1) having an exterior surface (2) (see Figure 1), the inner member (1) being in the outer ring (9+12) with the exterior surface (2) in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring (9+12). Please be advised that the exterior surface (2) is considered to be in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring (9+12), because the exterior surface (2) is received in the interior surface of the spindle nut body (12) of the outer ring (9+12). Noting this configuration, the exterior surface (2) of the inner member (1) is in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring (9+12) such that fluid flowing from the axial inlet (8) and through the plurality of flow passages (10, 11) discharges as a tubular stream (a, b) from a circumferential flow area (7) between the exterior surface (2) and the diffuser section (9).
Claim 2: The inner member (1) further comprises an inner ring (5) (see Figure 1). Alternatively, the exterior surface (2) of the inner member (1) in and of itself is an “inner ring” because it (2) is a ring-shaped element that is disposed within the confines of the coupler (12) of the outer ring (9+12).
Claim 3: Please be advised that claim 3 is rejected within the interpretation in which element 5 is considered to be the “inner ring.” The inner ring (5) is shown in Figure 1 as being configured to removably secure a cutting tool (15).
Claim 4: Please be advised that claim 4 is rejected within the interpretation in which element 2 is considered to be the “inner ring.” As can be seen within Figure 1, an inner periphery of the inner ring (2) in which the circumferential flow area (7) is formed constitutes a “flow guiding surface” formed on the exterior surface (2).
Claim 7: Figure 1 shows that the plurality of flow passages (10, 11) taper. As such, at least one (10 and/or 11) of the plurality of flow passages (10, 11) has a conical shape that terminates at a partially closed end.
Claim 8: Figure 1 shows that at least one (10 and/or 11) of the plurality of flow passages (10, 11) is tilted relative to a longitudinal axis of the outer ring (9+12).
Claim 10: Figure 1 shows that the diffuser section (2) is a conical surface (see inner surface of the diffuser section (2)) that radially converges towards an inner ring (5) of the inner member (1).
Claim 11: The spindle assembly of Mai further comprises the spindle nut body (12) having an interior area with a limit stop (13). Please be advised that the inner member (1) and the outer ring (9+12) are disposed in the interior area of the spindle nut body (12) (see Figure 1) with the outer ring (9+12) (specifically the diffuser section (9) thereof) abutting the limit stop (13).
Claim 18: As can be seen in Figure 1, the tubular (fluid) stream (a, b) is directed in a direction opposite a direction of rotation of the inner member (4).
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mai (U.S. Patent No. 5,358,360 A) in view of Chen (U.S. Patent No. 9,062,770 B2).
Claim 12: Mai does not provide disclosure upon the spindle nut body (12) having “a radially inward opening circumferential groove formed in the interior area, a seal being disposed in the circumferential groove urging the outer ring into the limit stop.”
Figure 1 of Chen though, shows an outer ring (10+20) comprising a spindle nut body (10), the spindle nut body (10) comprising an inward opening circumferential groove (12) formed in an interior area thereof, a seal (13) being disposed in the circumferential groove (12) urging the washer (20) of the outer ring (10+20) into a limit stop. Please be advised that the limit stop of the spindle nut body (10) corresponds to an interior flanged surface of said spindle nut body (10) against which a larger diameter section of the washer (20) is urged to abut by the seal (13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the spindle nut body (12) of Mai with the circumferential groove (12) and seal (13) of Chen, so as to provide a sealed connection between the spindle nut body (12) and the corresponding diffuser section (9) of the outer ring (9+12) so as to ensure that the tubular stream doesn’t inadvertently flow through the area at which the spindle nut body (12) and the diffuser section (9) interface, and so as to further provide for a tight fit between the diffuser section (9) and the limit stop (13) noting that the seal (13) of Chen will serve to urge the diffuser section (9) into the limit stop (13). Please be advised that the circumferential groove (12) will be formed (in accordance with the disclosure of Chen) adjacent the limit stop (13) of the spindle nut body (12) such that the seal (13) of Chen will abut against the radially outer surface of the step (14) (see Figure 1) of the diffuser section (9) of Mai.
Claim 13: Regarding the outer ring (9+12), via the diffuser section (9) thereof, it (9+12) comprises an outer ring exterior surface which corresponds to the outer surface of the step (14) (see Figure 1) of the diffuser section (9) of Mai. Mai though, does not provide disclosure on this outer ring exterior surface “having a sealing surface tapered radially outward from the axial inlet and terminating at an apex located between the axial inlet and an outlet end of the outer ring, the sealing surface configured to engage a seal and axially retain the outer ring in the spindle nut body.”
Figure 1 of Chen though, shows an outer ring (10+20) comprising a spindle nut body (10) and a washer (20). As can be seen in Figure 1, the washer (20) has a sealing surface which interfaces with a seal (13). Note that the seal (13) is disposed in a circumferential groove (12) formed in an interior area of the spindle nut body (10). As can also be seen in Figure 1 of Chen, the sealing surface of Chen has an apex that separates a tapered radially outward section and a corresponding tapered radially inward section. For Applicant’s reference, the seal (13) is shown as interfacing with the tapered radially outward section of the sealing surface. As such, Chen discloses the sealing surface being configured to engage the seal (13) and to axially retain the washer (20) in the spindle nut body (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the spindle nut body (12) of Mai with the circumferential groove (12) and seal (13) of Chen and to have modified the shape of the
outer surface of the step (14) of Mai to have an apex that separates a tapered radially outward section and a corresponding tapered radially inward section in accordance with the disclosure of Chen, so as to provide a sealed connection between the spindle nut body (12) and the corresponding diffuser section (9) of the outer ring (9+12) in order to ensure that the tubular stream doesn’t inadvertently flow through the area at which the spindle nut body (12) and the diffuser section (9) interface. Be advised that the circumferential groove (12) will be formed (in accordance with the disclosure of Chen) adjacent the limit stop (13) of the spindle nut body (12) such that the seal (13) of Chen will abut against the tapered radially outward section of the modified radially outer surface of the step (14) (see Figure 1) of the diffuser section (9) of Mai. With this configuration, the sealing surface (which comprises the apex and the tapered radially inward and outward sections) of the modified radially outer surface of the step (14) of Mai is configured to engage the seal (13) of Chen and to axially retain the diffuser section (9) in the
spindle nut body (12).
Lastly, noting again that in the above modification that the shape of the radially outer surface of the step (14) of Mai is modified to have an apex that separates a tapered radially outward section and a corresponding tapered radially inward section in accordance with the disclosure of Chen, please be advised this tapered radially outward section tapers outward from the axial inlet (8) of Mai and terminates at the aforesaid apex. Noting again that this apex is formed on the outer surface of the step (14) of Mai, it can be determined from Figure 1 of Mai that the apex is located (with respect to a longitudinal direction) between the axial inlet (8) and an outlet end of the outer ring (9+12).
Claim 14: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 13, in modifying Mai in view of Chen, the shape of the radially outer surface of the step (14) of Mai is modified to have the apex that separates the tapered radially outward section and the corresponding tapered radially inward section in accordance with the disclosure of Chen. Noting this, with respect to the longitudinal direction of the spindle assembly, the tapered radially inward section is disposed between the apex and the limit stop (13). Having said that, the tapered radially inward section in and of itself is a “glide surface” that tapers radially inward from the apex. As a glide surface, this tapered radially inward section facilitates inserting the diffuser section (9) of the outer ring (9+12) into the interior area of the spindle nut body (12) of said outer ring (9+12).
Claim 15: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 13, regarding the outer ring (9+12), via the diffuser section (9) thereof, it (9+12) comprises an outer ring exterior surface which corresponds to the outer surface of the step (14) (see Figure 1) of the diffuser section (9) of Mai. Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 1 of Mai, the outer ring exterior surface of the step (14) comprises a shoulder that abuts the limit stop (13). (Please be advised that the shoulder is the face on the outer ring exterior surface that directly interfaces with the limit stop (13))). In the modified step (14) of Mai, note that the shoulder extends radially inward from the glide surface (which was described above within the rejection of claim 14). In abutting the limit stop (13), said shoulder functions to axially retain the diffuser section (9) of the outer ring (9+12) in the corresponding spindle nut body (12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beckington (U.S. PG Publication No. 2007/0077132 A1) shows therein a spindle assembly (10) comprising an inner member (12) and an outer ring (34). As to the outer ring (34), it has a plurality of flow passages (24) that are defined as open recesses in an inner surface of the outer ring (34). Please note that the inner surface is the left-hand face of the outer ring (34) from the perspective of Figure 1. Regarding the inner member (12), it has an exterior surface that has an inclined surface. This inclined surface contacts the left-hand face of the outer ring (34). Thus, at least in this way, the inner member (12) (which is in the outer ring (34), for example) has the exterior surface that is in contact with the inner surface of the outer ring (34).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights