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 .
Examiner acknowledges the response filed 8/13/2026. Claims 1 and 3-4 are pending in the application.
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 (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 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuyama et al. (US 2010/0310365).
Re Clm 1: Matsuyama et al. disclose (figs 2 and 7) a rotation device comprising: one or more plates (10 and 11) that define a part of a flow path (see figs); and a plurality of vanes that are disposed in the flow path, each of the plurality of vanes (15) including: a vane body that is located in the flow path (see figs); and a shaft (16) that is rotatably supported by one or more holes provided in the one or more plates (see figs), the shaft including a radiused or arc shape (cross-sectional shape of the cylindrical shaft is radiused and arc-shaped) taken at both ends in the axial direction of a contact part (16a, 16b) between the shaft and the one or more holes, wherein the shaft includes at least one tapered part (inside and outside of contact parts 16a and 16b), a connection part between the contact part and the at least one tapered part is rounded (external surface of cylindrical shaft is rounded) and includes the radiused or arc shape, such that the at least one tapered part is formed continuous with the radiused or arc shape, and the at least one tapered part is at least partially arranged inside of the one or more holes (see figs).
Re Clm 4: Matsuyama et al. disclose wherein the one or more plates include a first plate (11) and second plate (10), the shaft is rotatably supported by a first through hole (@ 16b) and a second through hole (@ 16a) provided in the first plate and the second plate, respectively, the shaft includes a first shaft part (16b) inserted into the first through hole of the first plate, and a second shaft part (16a) inserted into the second through hole of the second plate, wherein a protruding end of the first shaft part and an end face of the first plate are flush with each other (fig 7, left end of shaft flush with plate 11).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al. (US 2010/0310365).
Re Clm 3: Matsuyama et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein a radius of the radiused or arc shape is 0.5 mm or more and 1.0 mm or less. Examiner notes that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the radius of the R shape to be 0.5-1.0mm, as an obvious design consideration within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 regarding the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 of the response that Matsuyama et al. fail to disclose wherein the shaft includes at least one tapered part, a connection part between the contact part and the at least one tapered part is rounded and includes the radiused or arc shape, such that the at least one tapered part is formed continuous with the radiused or arc shape, and the at least one tapered part is at least partially arranged inside of the one or more holes. Examiner disagrees and notes that Matsuyama et al. disclose each and every one of the above limitations (see rejection above).
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 JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights