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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “merge, on the other side” and should be “merge[[,]] on the another side” since the end surface was previously defined with a “one side” and “another side”. Another suggestion is to recite “a second side”. Also, the comma should be deleted to avoid ambiguity of what follows on the another side and appears to be an unnecessary break.
Claim 1 recites “a circumferential direction, on the outer circumferential side” and should delete the comma to recite “a circumferential direction[[,]] on the outer circumferential side” to avoid ambiguity of what follows the recitation after the comma.
Claims 2-4 recite “the other side” and should be “the another side” for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “axial direction, from the merging end portion” and should delete the comma to recite “axial direction[[,]] from the merging end portion” to avoid ambiguity of what follows the recitation after the comma.
Claim 4 recites “the axial direction, from an end portion” and should delete the comma to recite “the axial direction[[,]] from an end portion”.
Claim 5 recites “the circumferential direction, on the outer circumferential side” and should delete the comma to recite “the circumferential direction[[,]] on the outer circumferential side”.
Claim 7 recites “the circumferential direction, on the outer circumferential side” and should delete the comma to recite “the circumferential direction[[,]] on the outer circumferential side”.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ott et al. (US 8,613,472 B2, hereinafter “Ott”).
In regard to claim 1, Ott discloses a rotary joint (Fig. 1 shows a rotary joint) comprising:
a tubular case body (Fig. 1, cylindrical housing 30 defines a tubular case body) formed such that an outer flow passage through which a sealing target fluid flows is open on an inner circumferential side (Fig. 1, fluid bore at 28 can be reasonably interpreted as an outer flow passage through which a sealing target fluid flows and is open on an inner circumferential side of 30);
a shaft body provided in the case body so as to be rotatable (Fig. 1, shaft 40 defines a shaft body) and formed such that an inner flow passage through which the sealing target fluid flows is open on an outer circumferential side (Fig. 1, passage defined by 43 and 42 define an inner flow passage which the sealing targe fluid flow is open on an outer circumferential side of the shaft body near 43); and
a communication flow passage connecting the outer flow passage and the inner flow passage (Fig. 1, grooves 2 and 3 and bore 6 define a communication flow passage between 28 and 43), wherein the inner flow passage
has a plurality of branch passage portions being open at positions different from each other in a circumferential direction (Fig. 1, 42 branches into at least two radial fluid bores 43 as shown which the at least two bores 43 define a plurality of branch passage portions open at positions different from each other in a circumferential direction) on the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (Fig. 1, each 43 are open on the outer circumferential side of 40), and
a main passage portion (Fig. 1, fluid bore 42 defines a main passage portion of the inner flow passage) extending in an axial direction from an end surface on one side in the axial direction of the shaft body (Fig. 1, 42 extends in an axial direction from an end surface on one side of 40 relative to a flange 46 similar to applicant’s invention) toward another side in the axial direction (Fig. 1, 42 extends toward another side of 40 opposite) and having a merging end portion where the plurality of branch passage portions merge on the another side in the axial direction (Fig. 1, the intersection of 42 and 43 define a merging end portion where the plurality of 43 merge which is on the another side of the shaft body 40).
In regard to claim 6, Ott discloses the rotary joint according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include a first branch passage portion and a second branch passage portion (Fig. 1, each radial 43 define at least a first branch passage portion and a second branch passage portion) extending radially outward of the shaft body from the merging end portion of the main passage portion (Fig. 1, each 43 extend radially outward of the shaft body from the merging end portion) to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (Fig. 1, each 43 extends to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body).
In regard to claim 7, Ott discloses the rotary joint according to claim 6, wherein the first branch passage portion and the second branch passage portion are open so as to be spaced apart from each other by 180° in the circumferential direction on the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (Fig. 1, the two 43 shown are radially open and spaced apart from each other by 180° in the circumferential direction on the outer circumferential side of the shaft body).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US 8,613,472 B2) in view of Jostein (US 5,788,288).
Ott discloses the rotary joint according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include an inclined branch passage portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with the axial direction toward the another side in the axial direction from the merging end portion of the main passage portion to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body.
In the related field of pipe joints having branch passages, Jostein discloses a main passage portion having a plurality of branch passage portions (Fig. 1, main passage portion 44 which has at least two branches towards 21), wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include an inclined branch passage portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with an axial direction from a merging end portion of the main passage portion (Fig. 1, each branch extend from a merging end portion of 44 that forms an acute angle with an axial direction relative to 44) in order to have at least a desired and reliable fluid routing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the perpendicular angle of the plurality of branch passage portions of Ott for the acute angled plurality of branch passage portions of Jostein with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a desired and reliable fluid routing system as taught by Jostein. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Ott in view of Jostein would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that there can be various ways to route branched fluid flows to have a desired and reliable fluid flow allowing for faster or more efficient fluid flow in the system.
Additionally, it has been held that matters relating to positioning of parts were held unpatentable if the different positions would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ott to include the plurality of branch passage portions include an inclined branch passage portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with the axial direction toward the another side in the axial direction from the merging end portion of the main passage portion to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body because rearranging or designing the plurality of branch passage portions at an acute angle or any other angle would not modify the critical function of the branch passage portions of transferring fluid. As disclosed above, Ott and Jostein show the branch passage portions can be at least branching at a perpendicular angle or an inclined angle in order to transfer the fluid to a desired location.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0120366 A1, hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of Ott (US 8,613,472 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Suzuki discloses a rotary joint (Fig. 1 shows a rotary joint) comprising:
a tubular case body (Fig. 1, tubular case body 2) formed such that an outer flow passage through which a sealing target fluid flows is open on an inner circumferential side (See image below, indicated outer flow passage is open on an inner circumferential side similar to applicant’s invention for transferring a sealing target fluid);
a shaft body provided in the case body so as to be rotatable (Fig. 1, shaft body 5 is rotatable) and formed such that an inner flow passage through which the sealing target fluid flows is open on an outer circumferential side (See image below, indicated inner flow passage which is open on an outer circumferential side to a chamber near 61b that is fluidly connected to the sealing target fluid); and
a communication flow passage connecting the outer flow passage and the inner flow passage (See image below, indicated communication flow passage connects the outer flow passage to the inner flow passage), wherein the inner flow passage
has a branch passage portion being open in a circumferential direction on the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (See image below, the inner flow passage includes one branch passage portion that is open in a circumferential direction on the outer circumferential side of shaft body 5), and
a main passage portion (See image below, the inner flow passage includes a main passage portion) extending in an axial direction from an end surface on one side in the axial direction of the shaft body (See image below, the main passage portion extends in an axial direction from an end surface of 5 on one side in the axial direction of the shaft body 5) toward another side in the axial direction (See image below, the main passage portion extends toward another side in the axial direction) and having a merging end portion where the branch passage portion merge on the another side in the axial direction (See image below, indicated merging end portion is where the branch passage portion merges on the another side in the axial direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki does not expressly disclose a plurality of branch passage portions being open at positions different from each other in a circumferential direction.
In the related field of rotary joints, Ott discloses an inner flow passage having a plurality of branch passage portion open at positions different from each other in a circumferential direction in order to have at least the advantage of a reliable and desired fluid flow because the redundancy of branches would at least increase reliability in case one branch fails or clogs.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single branch passage portion of Suzuki to include plural branch passage portions being open at positions different from each other in a circumferential direction with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a reliable and desired fluid flow because the redundancy of branches would at least increase reliability in case one branch fails or clogs as taught by Ott.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Ott would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that having more than one branch passage allow for a desired fluid flow and the redundancy provides advantages of increased reliability and efficiency in the event that one of the branch passages fails or clogs.
Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single branch passage portion of Suzuki to be duplicated to include plural branch passage portions instead of a single branch passage portion in order to have at least the advantage of a desired fluid flow and the redundancy provides advantages of increased reliability in the event that one of the branch passages fails or clogs. Furthermore, having a plurality of branch passage portions that lead to the same fluid chamber does not provide a new and unexpected result. See applicant’s drawings in Fig. 1, the branch passage portions that are 180 degrees spaced apart lead to the same fluid chamber which functions in the same way that the branch passages of the prior art Ott. Therefore, absent evidence of a new and unexpected results of a plural fluid passage portions to the same fluid chamber, having a singe fluid passage portion or plural fluid passage portions to the same fluid chamber are obvious variants.
In regard to claim 6, Suzuki and Ott disclose the rotary joint according to claim 1, and Ott further discloses wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include a first branch passage portion and a second branch passage portion (Fig. 1, each 43 shown defines a first and a second branch passage portion) extending radially outward of the shaft body from the merging end portion of the main passage portion to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (Fig. 1, each 43 extend radially outward of the shaft body from the merging end portion of the main passage portion the outer circumferential side of the shaft body. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Suzuki and Ott.).
In regard to claim 7, Suzuki and Ott disclose the rotary joint according to claim 6, and Ott further discloses wherein the first branch passage portion and the second branch passage portion are open so as to be spaced apart from each other by 180° in the circumferential direction on the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (Fig. 1, each 43 are spaced apart by 180°. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Suzuki and Ott and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably space apart the branch passages at 180 degrees without interfering with other passages within the shaft body.).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2022/0120366 A1) in view of Ott (US 8,613,472 B2) and further in view of Jostein (US 5,788,288).
In regard to claim 2, Suzuki and Ott disclose the rotary joint according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include an inclined branch passage portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with the axial direction toward the another side in the axial direction from the merging end portion of the main passage portion to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body.
In the related field of pipe joints having branch passages, Jostein discloses a main passage portion having a plurality of branch passage portions (Fig. 1, main passage portion at 44 which has at least two branches towards 21), wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include an inclined branch passage portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with an axial direction from a merging end portion of the main passage portion (Fig. 1, each branch extend from a merging end portion of 44 that forms an acute angle with an axial direction relative to 44) in order to have at least a desired and reliable fluid routing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the perpendicular angle of the plurality of branch passage portions of Suzuki in view of Ott for the acute angled plurality of branch passage portions of Jostein with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a desired and reliable fluid routing system as taught by Jostein. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Suzuki and Ott in view of Jostein would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that there can be various ways to route branched fluid flows to have a desired and reliable fluid flow allowing for faster or more efficient fluid flow in the system.
Additionally, it has been held that matters relating to positioning of parts were held unpatentable if the different positions would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki in view of Ott to include the plurality of branch passage portions include an inclined branch passage portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with the axial direction toward the another side in the axial direction from the merging end portion of the main passage portion to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body because rearranging or designing the plurality of branch passage portions at an acute angle or any other angle would not modify the critical function of the branch passage portions of transferring fluid. As disclosed above, Suzuki, Ott, and Jostein show the branch passage portions can be at least branching at a perpendicular angle or an inclined angle in order to transfer the fluid to a desired location.
In regard to claim 3, Suzuki, Ott, and Jostein disclose the rotary joint according to claim 2, but do not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include an extension branch passage portion having an extension portion extending in the axial direction from the merging end portion of the main passage portion toward the another side in the axial direction.
It has been held that matters relating to positioning of parts were held unpatentable if the different positions would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki in view of Ott and Jostein to include wherein the plurality of branch passage portions include an extension branch passage portion having an extension portion extending in the axial direction from the merging end portion of the main passage portion toward the another side in the axial direction in order to have at least the advantage of efficient spacing and routing of the fluid passages and a desired fluid flow.
See applicant’s invention shown in Fig. 1, where the extension branch passage portion is 37 which appears to be arbitrarily located and shaped. However, it is within one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably understand basic fluid flow property changes based on fluid flow path angles to have a desired flow rate and pressure. Other obvious consideration would also include efficient fluid routing and material strength of the shaft body.
In regard to claim 4, Suzuki, Ott, and Jostein disclose the rotary joint according to claim 3, wherein the extension branch passage portion further has an inclined portion extending in a direction that forms an acute angle with the axial direction toward the another side in the axial direction from an end portion on the another side in the axial direction of the extension portion to the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (See claim 3 above for the same reasons since claim 4 also relates to the specific arrangement of extension branch passage portion).
In regard to claim 5, Suzuki, Ott, and Jostein disclose the rotary joint according to claim 3, Jostein further discloses wherein the inclined branch passage portion and the extension branch passage portion are open so as to be spaced apart from each other by 180° in the circumferential direction on the outer circumferential side of the shaft body (See claim 2 above for the same reasons to combine Suzuki and Jostein such that the plurality of branch passage portions are spaced apart 180 degrees as shown in Fig. 1 of Jostein that lead to the same fluid chamber).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bard et al. (US 2,343,491), Omiya et al. (US 2002/0017785 A1), Uchikawa (US 10,663,097), Falconer (US 7,083,200 B2), Pierce (US 3,853,328), Suzuki et al. (US 10,655,741 B2), Imai et al. (US 7,976,069 B2), Kikuyama et al. (US 10,088,089 B2), and Petrou et al. (US 11,274,782 B2) disclose a rotary joint having a flow passage that has at least one branch passage within a shaft body similar to applicant’s invention of transferring fluid within the shaft body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights