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 .
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.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 recite the term “specific” in various limitations, and the intended meaning of the phrasing is unclear. It is unclear if the term is merely a naming convention, or if the phrasing has the common meaning of “clearly defined or identified,” or if the phrasing is intended to convey structure.
Claim 5 recites “a second specific gap portion in which a relative rotation speed of gap forming members is higher than a relative rotation speed in the first specific gap portion,” which is unclear. There is no discernable structural relationship between the gap forming members and the first/second specific gap portions, and it is unclear how “gap forming members” are intended to rotate, so it is unclear what structure is required by the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanuc ‘767 (WO 2021/166767), in view of Fanuc ‘949 (JP 11-33949); Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanuc ‘767 (WO 2021/166767) and Fanuc ‘949 (JP 11-33949), in view of Fanuc ‘716 (JP 2020-116716); Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanuc ‘767 (WO 2021/166767) and Fanuc ‘949 (JP 11-33949), in view of Asahi (JP 2013-6913).
The current application is related to PCT/JP2023/014098 and the current claims are substantially similar in scope to the PCT claims. The examiner adopts, and incorporates herein by reference, the explanations of the closest prior art as set forth in the PCT (see the copy of the PCT/ISA/237).1
Regarding claims 5-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of the cited disclosures into the claimed arrangement, as a matter of mere optimization, e.g. providing a desired distance and/or volume between components.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of the cited disclosures into the claimed arrangement, for the expected benefit of allowing a more robust arrangement, e.g. able to resist deterioration and/or damage for an expected environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See MPEP 1893.03(e)(II) which permits the examiner to adopt any portion or all of any report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA that would be relevant to U.S. practice, e.g., explanations of prior art, etc.