Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/072,255

ROTARY JOINT DEVICE, MOTOR, AND MACHINE TOOL

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Priority
Mar 11, 2024 — JP 2024-037360
Examiner
VITALE, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
324 granted / 482 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
512
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 482 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 12 of the claim, “DLC (diamond-like carbon) film” should be changed to “diamond-like carbon (DLC) film”. 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 1-5 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. Lines 14-16 of claim 1 state, “an elastic member interposed liquid-tight between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment and the DLC film.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the elastic member is interposed between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment and the DLC film when the elastic member is actually seated within a groove formed in the third hole/inner peripheral surface of the attachment. In other words, since the groove interrupts the inner peripheral surface of the attachment, how is it that the elastic member is interposed between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment and the DLC film? Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “an elastic member interposed liquid-tight between a groove formed in the inner peripheral surface of the attachment and the DLC film”. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the end face side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “[[the]] an end face side”. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “another end”. Lines 1-5 of claim 4 state, “A motor comprising: a rotary shaft rotatable in the circumferential direction and having a tubular shape and a through hole which liquid flows in an axial direction, wherein the rotary shaft is connected with the rotary-side joint of the rotary joint device according to claim 1.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if clam 4 requires the particulars of claim 1. This stems from the fact that the disclosed motor and the disclosed rotary joint device are separate elements, and because claim 4 is directed to “A motor”. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “A motor assembly comprising: a motor including a rotary shaft rotatable in the circumferential direction and having a tubular shape and a through hole which liquid flows in an axial direction; and the rotary joint device of claim 1, wherein the rotary shaft is connected with the rotary-side joint of the rotary joint device according to claim 1…” The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Lines 14-16 of claim 1 state, “an elastic member interposed liquid-tight between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment and the DLC film.” With respect to the drawings filed on 3/6/2025, Examiner directs attention to Figure 3. As can be seen in Figure 3, the attachment (31) comprises a third hole (310) that the inner peripheral surface defines. Next, per paragraph [0062] of the specification filed on 3/6/2025, the third hole (310) of the attachment (31) has a groove (34) on the inner peripheral surface, where the groove (34) runs continuously in the circumferential direction of the attachment (31), and where an elastic member (31) is housed in the groove (34). Noting this, it can be seen in Figure 3 of the drawings filed on 3/6/2025 that the groove (34) interrupts the inner peripheral surface of the attachment (31). Since the groove (34) interrupts the inner peripheral surface, and because the elastic member (31) is housed in the groove (34), the elastic member (31) is not actually interposed between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment (31) and the DLC film (35). Since the elastic member (31) is not actually interposed between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment (31) and the DLC film (35), the drawings filed on 3/6/2025 do not disclose, “an elastic member interposed liquid-tight between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment and the DLC film.” With regards to the specification filed on 3/6/2025, at least paragraphs [0011] and [0063] thereof disclose the elastic member (31) being interposed liquid-tight between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment (31) and the DLC film (35). The specification though, is not in agreement with the drawings filed on 3/6/2025. Thus, while paragraphs [0011] and [0063] disclose the elastic member (31) being interposed liquid-tight between the inner peripheral surface of the attachment (31) and the DLC film (35), this contradicts what is shown in Figure 3 with the elastic member (31) actually being interposed liquid-tight between the groove (34) formed in the inner peripheral surface of the attachment (31) and the DLC film (35). Due to the lack of agreement between the specification and the drawings, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner’s Comment A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 1-5. Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 1-5 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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. /MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722 /SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734595
INLINE WELD-BEAD CUTTING APPARATUS FOR SPIRAL PIPE
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722237
System and Method for Fast Part Forming Using Intelligent Robotic System with Interchangeable Tools
4y 7m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12715056
DENTAL TOOL HAVING A MINIATURIZED RFID TAG AND DENTAL CNC MILLING / GRINDING MACHINE USING THE SAME
4y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12697666
Cutting tool
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691504
CLAMPING DEVICE FOR TOOL HOLDER
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.7%)
3y 1m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 482 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month