Application No.: 13/813,199
`Response Dated May 26, 2015
`Reply to Final Office Action of March 26, 2015
`
`RemarkslArguments:
`
`MAT—10583US
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are presently pending, with all pending claims rejected. Reconsideration
`
`is respectfully requested in view of the following remarks.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Page 2 of the Office Action sets forth “Claim 1 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a)
`
`as
`
`being unpatentable over Sumino (JP2010163989A)
`
`in view of Nakamura
`
`(JP2009250114A).” Page 5 of the Office Action sets forth “Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumino...in view of Nakamura...in further view of
`
`Sumino (JP2008240605A)." Applicants respectfully submit that these claims are patentable
`
`over the applied references for the reasons set forth below.
`
`Applicants’ invention, as recited by claim 1,
`
`includes features which are not disclosed,
`
`taught, or suggested by the applied references, namely:
`
`...a groove having an opening and a bottom part engaged with the
`roll pin, side walls of the groove are slanted to widen from the
`bottom part to the opening, the side walls have straight portions
`formed to confront each other in parallel to a longitudinal direction
`of the shaft and extending toward the opening from a start point
`corresponding to a central axis of the roll pin, and a distance
`between the confronting straight portions is equal to a diameter of
`the roll pin.
`
`The sidewalls of the groove include straight portions that confront one another in parallel to the
`
`longitudinal direction of the shaft. The straight portions have a start point corresponding to the
`central axis of the roll pin received within the opening. The distance between the confronting
`
`straight portions is equal
`
`to a diameter of the roll pin. These features are found in the
`
`specification at page 5, lines 1—8, and FIG. 3.
`
`The Office Action asserts that FIG. 3 of Sumino ‘989 discloses the straight portions of
`
`claim 1. Applicants disagree.
`
`Sumino ‘989 fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a groove having straight portions that
`
`confront one another in parallel.
`
`To the contrary, as acknowledged
`
`in the Office Action,
`
`Sumino ‘989 discloses a groove with walls that “slant outward”, and are not parallel to one
`
`another. This is demonstrated in FIG.3 of Sumino ‘989,
`
`in which both sidewalls are visible.
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/813,199
`Response Dated May 26, 2015
`Reply to Final Office Action of March 26, 2015
`
`MAT—10583US
`
`.
`
`Both sidewalls could not be visible from an area outside the groove if they were parallel to one
`
`another. Thus, Sumino ‘989 is different from claim 1, which requires a groove having straight
`
`portions that confront one another in parallel.
`
`Sumino ‘989 fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the sidewalls of the groove start at a
`
`central axis of the roll pin. Sumino ‘989 is completely silent regarding where in the groove the
`
`FIG.3 of Sumino ‘989 appears to show the side walls extending from the
`sidewalls begin.
`bottom of the groove, which would be below the central axis of the roll pin. Thus, Sumino ‘989
`is again different from claim 1, which requires a groove having straight portions with a start
`
`point corresponding to a central axis of the roll pin.
`
`Finally, Sumino ‘989 fails to disclose,
`
`teach, or suggest that straight portions are
`
`separated by a distance equal to a diameter of the roll pin. The Office Action argues that the
`
`sidewalls of Sumino ‘989 “appear[] to share a distance between themselves equal to a diameter
`
`of the roll pin.” However, the drawings do not demonstrate this feature, and as acknowledged
`
`by the Office Action, Sumino ‘989 is “not...explicit in this regard.” The proportions of features in
`
`a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are indicated as being drawn to
`
`scale. See M.P.E.P. § 2125. Thus, Sumino ‘989 is again different from claim 1, which requires
`
`the distance between the confronting straight portions to be equal to a diameter of the roll pin.
`
`Nakamura fails to make up for the deficiencies of Sumino ‘989 with respect to claim 1.
`
`Nakamura is directed to a blade installing device for an air blower. As shown in FIG. S,
`
`Nakamura discloses a shaft 104 with a roll pin 106. The roll pin 106 mates with a boss section
`
`102 having a groove 107. See Nakamura at 1] 4 and FIG. 5.
`
`FIG. 5 of Nakamura depicts the prior art of Nakamura. As explained in the background
`
`on Nakamura, the prior art shown in FIG. 5 has a problem, namely, a vibration caused by the
`
`cocking. Nakamura, as well as the present invention, aims to resolve the problem with the
`prior art. Thus,
`it is plain from the disclosure of Nakamura that FIG. 5 of Nakamura does not
`show the solution to prior art problem, i.e., the features of the present invention.
`
`The Office Action asserts “it has been well established in the prior art to accommodate a
`
`roll pin in a groove that has strait side wall positions parallel to one another and which also
`
`share a separation distance that matches the diameter of the roll pin.” In particular, the Office
`
`Action asserts that groove 107 corresponds to the groove of claim 1. The Office Action further
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/813,199
`Response Dated May 26, 2015
`Reply to Final Office Action of March 26, 2015
`
`MAT-10583US
`'
`
`asserts that a distance between the sidewalls of groove 107 is equal to a diameter of roll pin
`
`106. Applicants respectfully disagree.
`
`Nakamura is completely silent regarding the distance between the sidewalls of groove
`
`107. However, Nakamura does disclose that the inside dimensions of groove 7 (of another
`
`embodiment) are larger than the associated roll pin 4. See 1] 33. Further, Nakamura teaches
`
`that a washer 8 with an elastic body is sandwiched between groove 7 and roll pin 4.
`
`In other
`
`words,
`
`the washer 8 of Nakamura is
`
`the proposed solution to the problem of vibrations
`
`occurring in FIG. 5 of Nakamura Thus, Nakamura provides no‘support, and in fact teaches
`
`away from, forming sidewalls of groove to have an equal spacing to the diameter of a roll pin.
`
`For the above reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that Sumino ‘989 in View of
`
`Nakamura fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the feature of “an end face of the boss portion...is
`
`provided with a groove having an opening and a bottom part engaged with the roll pin, side
`
`walls of the groove are slanted to widen from the bottom part to the opening, the side walls
`
`have straight portions formed to confront each other in parallel to a longitudinal direction of the
`shaft...a distance between the confronting straight portions is equal to a diameter of the roll
`
`pin,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`for the reasons set forth above, claim 1
`
`is allowable over the applied
`
`references. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claim 1 is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`I
`
`Claim 2 includes all of the features of claim 1, from which it depends. Applicants submit
`
`that the addition of Sumino ‘605 fails to make up for the deficiencies of Sumino ‘989 and
`Nakamura with respect to claim 1. Sumino ‘605 fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a boss
`portion having a groove including the features recited in claim 1. Thus, Applicants submit that
`
`claim 2 is allowable over the applied references for at least the reasons set forth above with
`
`respect
`to claim 1.
`respectfully requested.
`
`Therefore, withdrawal of the rejections and allowance of claim 2 is
`
`Page, 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/813,199
`Response Dated May 26, 2015
`Reply to Final Office Action of March 26, 2015
`
`Conclusion:
`
`MAT-10583US
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the application is in condition for allowance. Early
`
`reconsideration and allowance of each claim are respectfully requested.
`
`If the Examiner
`
`believes an interview, either personal or telephonic, will advance the prosecution of this
`
`application, it is respectfully requested that the Examiner contact the undersigned to arrange
`
`the same.
`
`itted,
`
`.1-
`
`
`
`.mues L. tEkowicz, Reg. No. 41,738
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`JLE/dmw
`
`Dated: May 26, 2015
`
`PO. Box 980
`
`Valley Forge, PA 19482
`(610) 407-0700
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge or credit Deposit Account No. 18-0350 for
`any additional fees, orany underpayment or credit for overpayment in connection herewith.
`2666237
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`