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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the replacement sheets filed January 6, 2025 includes boxes around the figures in order to lump figures a, b, c etc. into a group to avoid the need for multiple labels that read “Fig. 2” or “Fig 4.” or “Fig. 6”, this box should be removed and each figure given its on figure number such as Fig.2a and so on. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The listing of reference characters at the end of the disclosure is not a requirement in US practice and can be removed, however if Applicant wishes to keep the list the list should include all of the reference characters used in the disclosure. Currently characters such as 2a-2c, 5, 6 and 14 are missing from the list and should be included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 9 are grammatically awkward and should be rephrased.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 last clause of the claim is attempting to define and compare the angles recited by the claim, however this recitation is unclear and appears incomplete for a number of reasons. First, for the first line the initial point is “an effective end” however it is unclear what this term means and where it is limiting the first points location. What is required to be “an effective end”? Can this be any arbitrary point selected at the end of the rolling groove of the rail member or does this have to be a contact point? Second, it is unclear how the rolling groove center line is defined. A line is normally defined by two points, what are the two points? Alternatively a line can be defined along an axis however the claim does not define any particular axis. In this case the line is G, this is an imaginary line orthogonal to the groove, this should be reflected in the claim, as currently written the claim could be interpreted to include a center line extending longitudinally which results in the claim not clearly defining the invention.
Claim 2, line 4 references “the line” however the claim combination defines multiple lines between the end of claim 1 and claim 2, it is unclear what line this is referencing back to. In order to keep the claims clear it is suggested that the lines be given distinct names so that it is clarify what line is being addressed.
Claim 3 defines different angles using similar reference point recitations as claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons. After fixing claim 1 claim 3 should be amended in a similar manner. However, claim 3 is also unclear as the claim is attempting to define an area based on a start point of a turn of the turning groove to a location in the assembly where γ collapses to zero, however γ is defined in the same way as α from claim 1 and thus it is unclear when this angle would actually collapse to zero, thus it is unclear what area this is actually limiting the claim to. Does this area also include the cross-section shown in figure 7? And wouldn’t figure 7 be the starting point and thus the angle would only increase as the ball enters the returning groove yet the claim is defining the area as a region from the start to the point where γ becomes zeros? This could then mean that the start and the angle location are the same point, a singular point does not define an area. Because of these issues it is unclear what the area being defined by the claim actually is. By γ becoming zero does Applicant actually mean a region from the start point to where contact with the ball in the rolling groove of the wall ends, in other words the ball enters the return portion? If so, γ doesn’t become zero but rather γ is no longer present because the contact that defines the angle doesn’t occur anymore.
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 defines the area and γ in the same way as claim 3 and is indefinite for the same reason. However in addressing claim 3 it is suggested that the “area” be given a name and then claim 4 can be amended to address that area by name without the need to redefine it in the same terms as claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iida, JP2010139008.
Regarding claim 1, Iida discloses a motion guide apparatus comprising: a rail member (11) including a rolling groove (11a) extending in a longitudinal direction; a block (12, including end caps) including a rolling groove (12a) facing the rolling groove of the rail member, a return portion (23), and a turn portion (at 42) connected to the rolling groove and the return portion; and a plurality of balls (43) placed in a circulation path including a rolling path between the rolling groove of the rail member and the rolling groove of the block, the return portion, and the turn portion, wherein the balls are sandwiched between a wall surface of the rolling groove of the rail member and a wall surface of at least part of a turn groove of the turn portion of the block to change a course of the balls that have moved along the rolling path (as the ball rolls into the turning path portion at 42 the ball rides on the rail and at least one surface within the turning path portion, in this case this can be between P1 and the lower most point of surface 11a in figure 6), and α + ß < 180° is satisfied where α is a rail member-side angle formed by a line linking an effective end of the rolling groove of the rail member, and a center of the ball on the rolling groove of the rail member and a rolling groove center line of the rail member (this would be defined by a point to the right of P2 in figure 6, this can be the first point counterclockwise from P2 where 43 contacts 11a), and ß is a block-side angle formed by a line linking a contact point (P1) of the turn groove of the block and the ball and the center of the ball on the rolling groove of the rail member, and the rolling groove center line of the rail member (as the claim is not explicit as to where and how the lines and points are positioned/extend, the centerline could correspond to line 2 in figure 6, this would keep θ1 as illustrated and θ2 would be a smaller angle than what is currently illustrated, what is illustrated is a combined angle of θ1 and θ2 that is less than 180 degrees and shrinking θ2 preserves that relationship, alternatively the center line 2 can be redrawn relative to the center of 11a and orthogonal to the rolling surface like in the instant application, θ1 would become larger but θ2 would be reduced at the same rate as θ1 was increased and thus the same relationship is maintained).
Regarding claim 2, Iida discloses that the contact point (P1) of the turn groove of the block with the ball is placed on a line that passes through the center of the ball (C) and is orthogonal to the rolling groove center line of the rail member (as explained above line 2 in figure 6 can be redrawn to include the middle of the surface 11a, this can also include the line 2 being orthogonal to line L1), or closer to the rail member than the line is to the rail member.
Regarding claim 5 and 8, Iida discloses that of a pair of side surfaces of the rail member outside the rolling groove (figure 4, the vertical wall of the rail above the lower ball element is one side wall including the raceway surface and the vertical wall below the lower ball element is the second side wall), one side surface that comes into contact with the ball protrudes toward the block more than the other side surface that does not come into contact with the ball (the vertical wall above the lower ball in figure 4 defines a surface, or a point where it connects the raceway, that is closer to the carriage body then the lower vertical wall portion).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Iida discloses that at least the rolling groove and the turn groove are continuously formed in the block being a single structure (the groove segments are connected end to end forming a continuous track and the block is a single structural unit, “continuously formed” and “single structure” does not exclude the part being made from a series of components connected together, it appears that Applicant is attempting to define the block as a one piece structure, the term “monolithic” or phrase “one-piece” should be used instead of “single structure” which does not structurally define the invention from a multiple part construction that ultimately comes together to form one structural element).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7, and dependent claim 4, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the indication of allowable subject matter is being made based on the assumption that the intent is not to claim where the angle collapses to zero but rather an area from the start of the turning groove until the ball element is removed from contact with the rail, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combinations wherein the angle requirement of the claim is satisfied through a range from where the turn groove starts to a point where rolling element no longer contacts the rail along with the angular requirement of claim 1.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights