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 .
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, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki [US Pub # 2021/0222731].
Regarding claim 1: Suzuki show a method for inspecting a number of balls disposed in a circulation path of a ball screw device, the method comprising inserting an inspection jig (51) between the balls (7) disposed in the circulation path through a gap between a nut and a screw shaft of the ball screw device ([0133]), and inspecting the number of the balls (7) by an insertion state of the inspection jig (51) at a time of insertion.
Regarding claim 2: Suzuki wherein the inspection jig (51) includes a narrow portion (55, see fig 5) and a wide portion provided on an insertion direction rear side of the narrow portion, a circumferential width (see fig 13) of the narrow portion is larger than a total gap amount between the balls (7) when the number of the balls (7) disposed in the circulation path is excessively large, and is smaller than a total gap amount between the balls (7) when the number of the balls (7) disposed in the circulation path is appropriate, and a circumferential width of the wide portion is larger than a total gap amount (the depth of the insertion of jig 51 determines the total gap) between the balls (7) when the number of the balls disposed in the circulation path is appropriate, and is smaller than a total gap amount between the balls (7) when the number of the balls disposed in the circulation path is excessively small.
Regarding claim 3: Suzuki wherein the inspection jig (51) includes a stepped portion (the jig 51 has stepped portion, see fig 5) that connects the narrow portion and the wide portion.
Regarding claim 4: Suzuki wherein the inspection jig (51) is provided with a mark for confirming an insertion depth.
Regarding claim 7: Suzuki wherein the inspection jig (51) is inserted between the balls while the screw shaft and the nut of the ball screw device are relatively reciprocated in a rotation direction (see [0133], “… the inventive concept of the present invention is also applicable to a linear motion device such as a linear motion guide apparatus including a rail, a slider or the like, a ball screw apparatus or a screw apparatus including a screw shaft, a nut or the like, an apparatus combining a linear motion guide bearing and a ball screw, or an actuator including an XY table or the like…”).
Regarding claim 8: Suzuki wherein the inspection jig (51) is inserted between the balls (7) while the inspection jig (51) is held in a relatively movable state in the rotation direction of the ball screw device with respect to the screw shaft and the nut of the ball screw device ([0133]).
Regarding claim 9: Suzuki wherein the inspection jig (51) is inserted between the balls in the circulation path (see fig 13), and the inspection jig (51) is stopped when a predetermined load is applied to the inspection jig (51).
Regarding claim 10: Suzuki an inspection jig that is inserted between balls disposed in a circulation path of a ball screw device and inspects a number of the balls (7), wherein the inspection jig (51) includes a narrow portion and a wide portion (see fig 5) provided on an insertion direction rear side of the narrow portion, a circumferential width of the narrow portion (55) is larger than a total gap amount between the balls when the number of the balls (see fig 7) disposed in the circulation path is excessively large, and is smaller than a total gap amount between the balls (7) when the number of the balls disposed in the circulation path is appropriate, and a circumferential width of the wide portion is larger than a total gap amount between the balls (7) when the number of the balls (7) disposed in the circulation path is appropriate, and is smaller than a total gap amount between the balls (7) when the number of the balls (7) disposed in the circulation path is excessively small.
Regarding claim 11: Suzuki an inspection device for a ball screw device, the inspection device inspecting a number of balls disposed in a circulation path of the ball screw device, the inspection device comprising: an inspection jig (51); an inspection jig drive unit (drive unit is inherent, since the jig is inserted, it has to be an inserting force applied on the jig 51) that inserts the inspection jig between the balls (7) disposed in the circulation path; and a determiner (the depth of the jig determines the width of gap therefore determining the number of balls) )that determines whether the number of the balls (7) in the circulation path is appropriate or inappropriate by an insertion state of the inspection jig (51).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki [US Pub # 2021/0222731] in view of Yanagisama [KR 20190087624]
Regarding claim 5: Suzuki does not show wherein the number of the balls is inspected by using a plurality of the inspection jigs having different circumferential widths. However Yanagisama shows the number of the balls is inspected by using a plurality of the inspection jigs (17, 17) having different circumferential widths (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have use more than one jig to inspect different locations of the ball circulating path as the same time to reduce testing time.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki [US Pub # 2021/0222731] in view of Yanagisama [KR 20190087624] in view of Chiba [DE 10343816]
Regarding claim 6: Suzuki shows and the first inspection jig (51) is inserted between the balls in an intermediate circulation path from one side in an axial direction, a first inspection jig (51) is used as the inspection jig Suzuki does not shows wherein the ball screw device has three or more of the circulation paths provided in different axial regions, a second inspection jig is used as the inspection jig, and the second inspection jig is inserted between the balls in the intermediate circulation path from another side in the axial direction, and the number of the balls disposed in the intermediate circulation path is inspected by an insertion state of each of the first inspection jig and the second inspection jig at a time of insertion. However Yanagusama shows a first and second inspection jigs (17, 17) are used as the inspection jig, and the first and the second inspection jigs (17, 17) are inserted between the balls in the intermediate circulation path, and the number of the balls disposed in the intermediate circulation path is inspected by an insertion state of each of the first inspection jig and the second inspection jig at a time of insertion.
Suzuki and Yanagusama do not shows wherein the ball screw device has three or more of the circulation paths provided in different axial regions and the first and second jigs inserted in the intermediate circulation path from another side in the axial direction. However, Chiba shows
wherein the ball screw device has three or more of the circulation paths (see fig 13A) provided in different axial regions and the first and second jigs inserted in the intermediate circulation path from another side in the axial direction (see translation “…Fig. 4 is an explanatory view of the operation of the ball screw device mounting device when the nut and the ball insertion jig are viewed from the lateral side thereof…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have used more than one jig to inspect different locations of circulating path of ball screw nut as the same time to reduce testing time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument that Suzuki does not disclose or suggest a method for inspecting the number of balls in a ball screw device
Paragraph [0084] disclose the following: “…The ball separating member 25 includes the same number of working arrows 63 as the number of balls 7 …”
The sigs/ working arrows 63 corresponding to the number of balls inspecting the number of balls disposed in the circulating path. In addition of inserting method taught by Suzuki, Suzuki also inherently teaches inspecting the number ball which corresponding to the number of jigs.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
783
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
526
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, JP 2021124141 shows a jig (See fig 5) inserted between balls (7) for inspection.
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 ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights