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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP 2004019767 A) in view of Nohira (JPS59147116A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and fig. 2) a linear guide device (fig. 1), comprising:
a guide member (2) including a guide groove (GG) surrounded by a base portion (5) and a pair of side wall portions (6),
each of the side wall portions (6) having a rolling groove (12) for rolling elements (3),
which is formed along a longitudinal direction of the guide groove (GG) so as to face the guide groove (GG);
a shaft member (1) which is configured to move inside the guide groove (GG) of the guide member (2) along the longitudinal direction of the guide groove (GG), and includes rolling grooves (11) facing the rolling grooves (12) of the guide member (2);
a plurality of rolling elements (3) configured to roll between the rolling groove (12) of the guide member (2) and the rolling groove (11) of the shaft member (1) while bearing a load;
and a cage (4), which is configured to be arranged inside the guide groove (GG) of the guide member (2) so as to be present in a gap between the guide member (2) and the shaft member (1), and has the plurality of rolling elements (3) being rotatably arranged in the cage (4).
Yamazaki does not disclose any one of the guide member or the shaft member has a stopper provided at an end part in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the cage to be brought into abutment against the stopper.
Nohira teaches (in figs. 6-7) the shaft member (10) has a stopper (10c) provided at an end part in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the cage (22c part of 20) to be brought into abutment against the stopper (10c, page 6, lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shaft member have a stopper, as taught by Nohira, in the linear guide device of Yamazaki for the purpose of regulating the axial movement of the cage to the shaft member.
Yamazaki further discloses the reverse of the claim language, wherein the cage (4) has a regulating hole (9) which is elongated along a moving direction of the shaft member (1), the guide member (2) has a locking protrusion (10) provided upright on the guide member (2) and having a distal end part (end of 10) inserted into the regulating hole (9) and thus does not disclose the claim requirement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide member or shaft member has a regulating hole and the cage has a locking protrusion instead, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide member or shaft member has a regulating hole and the cage has a locking protrusion instead because when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S.Ct. 1742 (2007). There is only a finite number of positions for the locking protrusion and the regulating hole to be located on the guide device. For example, it is either the cage has a regulating hole and the guide member or shaft member has the locking protrusion or the reverse, but the resulting guide device would have the same function either way.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP 2004019767 A) in view of Nohira (JPS59147116A) and in further view of Tsumara (JP 2016116555 A).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki in view of Nohira teaches the linear guide device according to claim 1 where the cage has a locking protrusion but does not teach the cage is molded integrally with the locking protrusion from a synthetic resin.
Tsumura teaches (in para. [0018]) the cage (2) is molded integrally with protrusions (22) from a synthetic resin for the purpose of having a simple structure that can be manufactured at a low cost (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cage be molded integrally with a locking protrusion from a synthetic resin, as taught by Tsumara, in the linear guide device of Yamazaki in view of Nohira for the purpose of having a simple structure that can be manufactured at a low cost (para. [0011]).
Alternative rejection #1
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP 2004019767 A) in view of Tsumara (JP 2016116555 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and fig. 2) a linear guide device (fig. 1), comprising:
a guide member (2) including a guide groove (GG) surrounded by a base portion (5) and a pair of side wall portions (6),
each of the side wall portions (6) having a rolling groove (12) for rolling elements (3),
which is formed along a longitudinal direction of the guide groove (GG) so as to face the guide groove (GG);
a shaft member (1) which is configured to move inside the guide groove (GG) of the guide member (2) along the longitudinal direction of the guide groove (GG), and includes rolling grooves (11) facing the rolling grooves (12) of the guide member (2);
a plurality of rolling elements (3) configured to roll between the rolling groove (12) of the guide member (2) and the rolling groove (11) of the shaft member (1) while bearing a load;
and a cage (4), which is configured to be arranged inside the guide groove (GG) of the guide member (2) so as to be present in a gap between the guide member (2) and the shaft member (1), and has the plurality of rolling elements (3) being rotatably arranged in the cage (4).
Yamazaki does not disclose any one of the guide member or the shaft member has a stopper provided at an end part in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the cage to be brought into abutment against the stopper.
Tsumara teaches (in figs. 1 and 6) the guide member (1) has a stopper (13) provided at an end part in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the cage (3) to be brought into abutment against the stopper (13, para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide member have a stopper, as taught by Tsumara, in the linear guide device of Yamazaki for the purpose of regulating the axial movement of the cage to the guide member.
Yamazaki further discloses the reverse of the claim language, wherein the cage (4) has a regulating hole (9) which is elongated along a moving direction of the shaft member (1), the guide member (2) has a locking protrusion (10) provided upright on the guide member (2) and having a distal end part (end of 10) inserted into the regulating hole (9) and thus does not disclose the claim requirement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide member or shaft member has a regulating hole and the cage has a locking protrusion instead, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide member or shaft member has a regulating hole and the cage has a locking protrusion instead because when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S.Ct. 1742 (2007). There is only a finite number of positions for the locking protrusion and the regulating hole to be located on the guide device. For example, it is either the cage has a regulating hole and the guide member or shaft member has the locking protrusion or the reverse, but the resulting guide device would have the same function either way.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki in view of Tsumara teaches (in Yamazaki annotated fig. 1 and Tsumara fig. 1) the guide member (Tsumara 1) has the stopper (Tsumara 13) provided at an end part in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the cage (Tsumara 3) to be brought into abutment against the stopper (Tsumara 13), and the shaft member (Yamazaki 1) has the regulating hole (Yamazaki 9) which is elongated along a moving direction of the shaft member (Yamazaki 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claim 3.
In particular for claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a guide device wherein an expanded portion is provided at the edge part so as to correspond to the root part of the locking protrusion in combination with the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not consistent with the rejection. Applicant is arguing that the cage in their linear guide device is prone to positional displacement and it is necessary to eliminate such displacement through periodic reset operations. They then brings up that Yamazaki does not disclose the stropper provided at the end part in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the cage to be brought into abutment against the stopper but acknowledges that the Examiner uses Nohira to bring in the stopper. However, Applicant then argues that the disclosure of Nohira does not disclose any functional relationship between (i) the stopper and (ii) the regulating hole.
Applicant is arguing about functional relationships between the two parts but there is nothing specially claimed about how the parts are intended to function with one another recited in the claim. Even claim 4 Is just discussing about the specific arrangement of the parts and not how they interact or function together. Applicant’s argument is about functional relationships and not the structure of the guide device and the combination of the prior art addressing the structure.
Applicant then argues that that the Examiner made substantial modification to Yamazaki in view of Nohira to have the regulating hole 9 of Yamazaki on the guide member or the shaft member and that it is impermissible hindsight as it is not considering the functional relationship between (i) the stopper and (ii) the regulating hole. However, as stated above, Applicant is arguing about functional relationships between the two parts but there is nothing specially claimed about how the parts are intended to function with one another recited in the claim. Applicant also does not consider why it is obvious to have the locking hole and regulating hole in different locations as there is only a finite number of positions for the locking protrusion and the regulating hole to be located on the guide device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617