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 § 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.
Regarding claim 1, the second to last clause of the claim is attempting to define and compare the angles recited by the claim, however this recitation, in light of the amendment, remains unclear. The first part of the clause defines the initial point is “an effective end” however it is unclear what this term means and where it is limiting the first points location. Applicant has attempted to define this in the clause added to the end of the claim however the recitation states “the effective end of the rolling groove is an end of an effective area being an arc portion with a constant radius r of the rolling groove” however it is still unclear what this means. The groove in the rail is a constant groove along the length of the rail based on the original filing thus there is no end that is different from the rest of the groove and there is no corresponding disclosure of the groove shape changing in the rail element. Therefore, it remains unclear as to what is required to be “an effective end”. See Remarks below.
Claim 3, it is unclear what “in an area sandwiching the ball” means. In a linear slider with a similar groove configuration the ball is always sandwiched in some manner between a surface of the rail and a surface of the block. In the context of claim 3 which area is this limiting the claim to? Does Applicant mean to claim that when the ball is between the start point of the turning groove and the apex of the turn? Or in other words when the ball is sandwiched (or located) between the start point of the groove and the apex of the turn?
Claim 7 recites the same limitations as claim 3, just with a different claim dependency, the claim is indefinite for the same reasons explained above.
Claim 4 also includes the same “sandwiching” phrase and is indefinite as explained above. However in claim 4 there is also a lack of antecedent basis for “the orthogonal line”. This particular line is now introduced in claim 2 from which claim 4 does not depend.
Response to Arguments
The arguments regarding the previous prior art rejection are moot. With regards to the remaining rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112, the amendment clearly defines one of the two lines that are used to define the angles but the “effective end” remains unclear. Applicant states that this issue is resolved by the amendment however the remarks nor the amendment answer the questions previously raised regarding what the recitation “effective end” means. It is clear that the effective end is not the end of the rail groove from the original disclosure but what is unclear is how the effective end is being defined and the specification does not provided any clear definition. Is the effective end where the ball begins to change direction but yet has not been removed from the rolling groove or is this where the ball is taken out of contact with the rolling groove profile more specifically. Looking at the illustrations the figures that illustrate the angles α and β the rolling element still appears to be in contact with rolling groove so wouldn’t this be the case over the length of the load bearing zone? Or does Applicant mean to define the end as a point where the rolling element is in contact with both the rolling groove and the turn groove of the block? Regardless of where this end is it must be clearly defined in both the claim and the description, in this case the description also does not provide a clear meaning to the term, in addition the remarks do not specifically answer the question previously raised, that being what is required to be “an effective end”?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, assuming that the “effective end” is clearly defined the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of a motion guide device with a rail, block and balls placed in a circulation path, wherein the groove in the rail is a gothic arch rolling groove with the corresponding angular relationship recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
