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 .
Drawings
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the more than one through hole (claimed as at least one) in claim 1 and the subject matter of claim 9 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 limitations are: rotating element in claim 1; and sealing group in claim 2.
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.
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 1-9 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 limitation “rotating element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Disclosure of the rotating element as including a signaling cam creates a lack of clarity as to its structure because it is unclear how the element is considered a cam that signals. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “a joint . . . having at least one through hole disposed to be hit on a first side by a first end of said rotating element” in Lines 8-10. The phrase “to be” infers an indeterminate point in time, which creates vagueness within the claim. Additionally, it is unclear how the through hole is “to be hit” by a first end of the rotating element. That is, it is unclear what is required by the first end being so “hit.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “said through hole” in Line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim previously refers to “at least one through hole.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “a first annular gasket arranged to be in contact with said first end” in Lines 2-3. The phrase “to be” infers an indeterminate point in time, which creates vagueness within the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “a second annular gasket arranged to be in contact with said first end” in Lines 2-3. The phrase “to be” infers an indeterminate point in time, which creates vagueness within the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “spaced from said first annular gasket to identify a space for retaining lubricant of said first annular gasket.” The metes and bounds of “identifying a space” in this context are not clearly delineated. If the spacing between the gaskets merely provides space for retaining lubricant, the claim must be amended to clearly set that relationship forth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “said container is shaped to make a stable coupling with said joint in said through hole.” The phrase “to make” infers a future point in time such that it is unclear whether the container is coupled to the joint or that it will, at some point, be coupled to the joint. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saccardo et al. (WO 2020/174272 A1) in view of Kubala (US Pub. No. 2008/0016950 A1).
(Claim 1) Saccardo et al. (“Saccardo”) discloses an electrospindle (1) having a motor (2) for moving a tool (clm. 1); a pulling shaft (3) configured to be operatively couplable coupled to the tool and operatively coupled to said motor (2) for a transmission of motion from said motor (2) to the tool; a rotating element (7) operatively connected to said pulling shaft (3); and a joint (6) stably coupled to said motor (2) and having a through hole (for receiving 7; Fig. 2), as best understood, disposed to be hit in on a first side by at least a first end of said rotating element (4). The joint (6) is provided with a fitting (8) for connection to a water supply pipe in said electrospindle (Fig. 2 showing drawbar 3 having channel therein for transfer of liquid). The fitting (8) is arranged at a second side of said through hole opposite to said first side (Fig. 2). Saccardo does not explicitly disclose the joint (6) having a water sensor interposed between said fitting (8) and said first side of said through hole so as to detect a passage of water from said through hole toward said motor.
Kubala discloses a water sensor (25, 325) interposed between said fitting (Fig. 3) and a first side of said through hole so as to detect a passage of water from said through hole (Figs. 1-4). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the electrospindle disclosed in Saccardo with a water sensor as suggested by Kubala in order to indicate leakage of fluid into areas that may be harmed by the fluid and/or stop a machine based upon the detection (¶¶ 0020-0023, 0042-0045).
(Claims 2-4) Saccaro does not explicitly disclose the joint (5) having a sealing group interposed between said fitting (8) and said water sensor and arranged circumferentially to1 said first end of said rotating element.
Kubala discloses a sealing group (11, 21) interposed between the fitting (Fig. 3) and the water sensor (315) and arranged circumferentially to a first end of a rotating element. The sealing group includes a first annular gasket (11) arranged to be in contact with said first end of said one rotating element. The sealing group (12) includes a second annular gasket (21) arranged to be in contact with said first end of said rotating element and spaced from said first annular gasket to identify a space for retaining lubricant of said first annular gasket (Figs. 1, 3; ¶ 0021). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the electrospindle disclosed in Saccaro with a sealing group as suggested by Kubala in order to prevent fluid from moving into sensitive areas of the device (¶¶ 0020-0023, 0042-0045).
(Claim 5) In the modified device, said water sensor includes an electrically conductive annular body (Kubala Fig. 2) arranged circumferentially to said first end of said at least one rotating element (Saccaro 7) and separate therefrom so as to avoid an electrical contact between said electrically conductive annular body and said at least one rotating element (Kubala Figs. 1, 3, 4).
(Claim 6) The water sensor includes a container (Kubala 207) for said electrically conductive annular body (Kubala 203).
(Claim 7) In the modified device, said container (Kubala 207) is shaped to make a stable coupling with said joint (Saccaro 6) in said through hole (Saccaro Fig. 2). That is, the container disposed about the electrically conductive annular body is disposed within a recess of to retain the sensor therein. The same would exist in the modification to dispose the sensor about the rotating element.
(Claim 8) The container (Kubala 207) includes an electrically insulating material arranged so as to ensure an electrical insulation between said electrically conductive annular body (Kubala 203) and said joint (Saccaro 6).
(Claim 9) Saccaro does not explicitly disclose a relay having a movable contact and a drive circuit, said movable contact being electrically interposed between an electric power supply of said electrospindle and said electrospindle, said drive circuit being electrically interposed between the electric power supply and said water sensor. Yet, Kubala does disclose that circuitry may be present to indicate leakage or even stop the machinery attached to the device (i.e., stop or shutdown spindle) (¶¶ 0020-0023, 0042-0045). Furthermore, such a claimed arrangement is well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed arrangement to the modified device of Saccaro as is well-known in the art or is taught by Kubala in order to protect components from the fluid leak.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 This is interpreted as “about.”
Prosecution Insights