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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Sakai (US 20200235650 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakai discloses:
A rotary table device comprising:
a base portion (1);
a bearing (5);
a table (2) rotatably supported with respect to the base portion via the bearing; and
a motor (3 & 4 & 6) operable to rotate the table in a rotational direction of the bearing [0026 & 0027 & 0028], wherein;
the motor includes
a coil row (3) fixed to the base portion (Fig. 1) and having a plurality of flat, annularly wound three-phase coreless coils (3) arranged side by side (Fig. 1), and
a magnet row (4) arranged opposite to the coil row and fixed to the table (Fig.2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 6), and having a plurality of plate-shaped magnets (9) arranged side by side in a circumferential direction of the table with alternating magnetic poles (Fig. 6) [0006 & 0028];
the table has an outer circumferential surface on which a scale (20) is printed around an entire circumference of the table (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 9) [abstract & 0029 & 0030],
the base portion has mounted thereon a sensor (21) for reading the scale (Fig. 9) [0029 & 0033],
the table includes
a disk-shaped placement portion (11) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 6) having an upper surface (47) formed to be flat (Fig. 2) [0027], and
a shaft portion (10 & 17) located below the placement portion (Fig. 2) and having a smaller diameter than the placement portion (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3),
the scale is printed on an outer circumferential surface of the shaft portion [0029 & 0030], and
an encoder head including the sensor is placed on the base portion such that the encoder head as a whole is positioned under the placement portion (Fig. 9) [0029 & 0033].
Regarding Claim 2, Sakai discloses:
the coil row is a row of the coreless coils arranged to constitute a portion of an annular ring (Fig. 5) [0028], and
the magnet row is an annular row of the magnets arranged around the entire circumference of the table (Fig. 6).
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 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 of this title, 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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 20200235650 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sakai discloses:
graduations constituting the scale are recesses formed on the outer circumferential surface of the table (Fig. 2) [0033].
Sakai does not teach:
graduations constituting the scale are recesses with lengths of 0.2 mm to 10 mm and depths of 0.1 pm to 100 pm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the encoder scale with graduations that are recesses with lengths of 0.2 mm to 10 mm in order to provide a readable scale that is viewable by the encoder even if there is a misalignment in the system in order to prevent failure in the positioning system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (referred to in MPEP 2144.05(I))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the encoder scale with graduations that are recesses with depths of 0.1 pm to 100 pm in order to provide recesses with a depth capable of being read by the encoder but too shallow for particulate build up to prevent misreading of positioning in the system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (referred to in MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 5, Sakai discloses:
the table and an inner ring (14) of the bearing are configured as a one-piece component (Fig. 3) [the inner ring of the bearing is fastened to the table to move as a unitary/monolithic system and therefore is configured as a one piece component].
Sakai does not teach:
the inner ring of the bearing is an outer ring of the bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the outer ring of the bearing to the table in place of the inner ring in order to prevent contaminants from being introduced to the bearing by means of gravity in order to prevent premature wear in the system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/03/27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an encoder head including the sensor is placed on the base portion such that the encoder head as a whole is positioned under the placement portion”:
Applicant’s assertion that the encoder head including the sensor of Sakai is not positioned such that an entire body the encoder head is positioned under the placement portion is not persuasive as the entire body of the encoder head including the sensor of Sakai is positioned below the placement portion which meets the Merriam-Webster definition for “below” of “in or into a position below or beneath something”. As the limitation makes no reference to the position entire body of the encoder head relative to the perimeter (radial extension) of the placement portion, Sakai anticipates the limitation as written by showing a sensor whose entire body lies below a plane defined by the placement portion.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights