Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-2 and 4-10 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a first end of the shaft and a second end of the shaft in lines 9-10. It is unclear if these are referring to the two ends of the shaft previously introduced or are introducing another two ends. For purposes of examination, the first and second ends will be interpreted as the two ends of the shaft. If this is the correct interpretation, the examiner recommends changing “two ends of the shaft” to “first and second ends of the shaft”, changing “a first end” to “the first end”, and “a second end” to “the second end”.
Claim 1 recites the disc in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites the workpiece in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Is this referring to “workpiece portion”?
Claim 1 recites one end of the shaft in the sixth to last line. It is unclear if this is introducing another end or is referring to one of the previously introduced ends of the shaft.
Claim 4 recites the opposite end of the shaft. It is unclear which end of claim 1 this is referring to.
Claim 5 recites the workpiece portion being a first workpiece portion of the first end of the shaft (7) from the beginning of the first workpiece portion to an end of the first workpiece portion by the reciprocating motions of the machining tool. This limitation is confusingly written. Is this attempting to recite that the workpiece portion is obtained by the reciprocating motions?
Claim 6 recites all of the ribs or grooves are obtained on a second workpiece portion. It is unclear how all of the ribs or grooves can be on the second workpiece portion when claim 1 states all of the ribs or grooves are formed on the workpiece portion.
Claim 7 recites all of the ribs or grooves are further obtained on a second workpiece portion. It is unclear how all of the ribs or grooves can be on the second workpiece portion when claims 1 and 5 state all of the ribs or grooves are formed on the workpiece portion/first workpiece portion.
Claim 7 also recites first and second machined portions in line 7. Is this referring to the first and second workpiece portions?
Claim 8 recites a workpiece in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this is introducing a new workpiece to be machined, or if this is attempting to recite that the workpiece portion to be machined is on the air or gas axial bearing.
Claim 8 recites a disc forming part of the shaft in one piece in line 2. It is unclear if “a disc” is referring to the disc recited in claim 1. Further, this is awkwardly written so as to be confusing. For example, what is “in one piece” referring to? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: the disc forming part of the shaft, wherein the shaft including the disc is a one-piece structure.
Claim 8 recites producing all of the ribs or grooves on a first face of the disc by moving the machining tool relative to the disc, or the rotating disc relative to the machining tool, in a single machining direction from a periphery of the disc to a bottom … . It is unclear how all the ribs or grooves can be formed on the first face by moving the tool in a single machining direction, when claim 1 requires forming ribs or grooves when displacing the shaft or tool holder in a longitudinal machining direction.
Claim 9 recites all of the ribs or grooves (24a) are produced on a second face of the disc. It is unclear how all of the ribs or grooves can be on the second face when claims 1 and 8 state all of the ribs or grooves are formed on the first face and the workpiece portion.
Claim 9 also recites a periphery of the disc in line 4. It’s unclear if this is referring to the periphery of the disc introduced in claim 8.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Independent claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter deemed allowable in the Office action mailed on June 16, 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
