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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's transmittal letter see page 14-22, filed 03/25/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Again in response to applicant's argument filed 03/25/2025 that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted, the components of the prior arts mentioned in the rejection do not have to have the same name as the matching components in the applicant’s claim; they do have to show the same function, as is suggested by the Applicant, nor is it the Examiner’s responsibility to translate the technology, techniques, and/or methods of the prior art of record, since it is the assumption of the Examiner that the Applicant and the Applicant’s representatives are those of at least ordinary skill in the art. Since the Examiner assumes that the Patents used in making the rejections with regard to and in light of the instant claims have complied with the enablement standards at set for the by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner correctly deduces that one of common skill would be able to read, understand, and manufacture the innovation as disclosed by the inventors. With regard to the Applicant’s assertions that the prior art of record does not fairly teach or disclose each and every limitation contained within the claims, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim, it appears as if the Applicant is reading limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.1993).
Regarding the applicant's critique of the prior arts used in the art rejections. It should be noted that the Examiner is not required to map each limitation to a cited passage within the prior art of reference, as is suggested by the Applicant, nor is it the Examiner’s responsibility to translate the technology, techniques, and/or methods of the prior art of record, since it is the assumption of the Examiner that the Applicant and the Applicant’s representatives are those of at least ordinary skill in the art. The prior arts Walton et al., Betz, Taylor, Farkas, and Hamilton reads on the claim except three switch breaker as a new ground on the continuation examination. The examiner matched every element of the applicant’s claim with an element in the prior art. It does not matter if the Walton et al., Betz, Taylor, Farkas, and Hamilton reference has more parts than the applicant’s invention since no art is meant to be a 100% equivalence with a disclosed invention.
In summary, the Examiner has taken the broadest and most reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations as written, in light of the specification. Although the specification may contain recitations of intended use, alternative points of view and subjective interpretative differences between the prior art of record and the present invention as premeditated, it is the claims themselves that are given patentable weight only inasmuch as they are constructed. Because the claimed invention has been painted with the broad stroke of petitioning for limitations that encompasses more than is asserted in the Applicant’s claims, the prior art of record continues to fully discloses the Applicant’s inventions as claimed.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification filed 09/09/2024 should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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.
Claim 2 said “A Geomagnetic Device is a switch breaker’ is claim 2 directed to a switch breaker that is named a Geomagnetic Device or is it directed to a geomagnetic device having a switch breaker?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US PG Pub 2012/0153618).
As to independent claim 2, Hamilton teaches a Geomagnetic device is a switch breaker (70, 72, 74), a coupling (42), a motor (34) and a generator (32) as shown in figure 3C.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walton et al. (5,097,194).
As to independent claim 2, Walton et al. teaches a Geomagnetic Device is a switch breaker (32) and a coupling attachment (46, 54) to a motor (14) and a generator (16) as shown in figure 2.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Betz et al. (7,673,713).
As to independent claim 2, Betz et al. teaches a Geomagnetic Device is a switch breaker (24) and a coupling attachment (30) to a motor (22) and a generator (20) as shown in figure 2.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (7,888,916).
As to independent claim 2, Taylor teaches a Geomagnetic Device is a switch breaker (4) and a coupling attachment (14) to a motor (10) and a generator (12) as shown in figure 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farkas (US PG Pub 2005/0173925).
As to independent claim 2, Farkas teaches a Geomagnetic Device is a switch breaker (20) and a coupling attachment (40, 44, 46, 42, 30 and 60) to a motor (50) and a generator (30) as shown in figure 1.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US PG Pub 2012/0153618).
As to independent claim 5, Hamilton teaches a Geomagnetic device comprising a switch breaker (70, 72, 74), a coupling (42), a motor (34) and a generator (32) as shown in figure 3C.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walton et al. (5,097,194).
As to independent claim 5, Walton et al. teaches a Geomagnetic device comprising a switch breaker (32) a coupling (46, 54), a motor (14) and a generator (16) as shown in figure 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Betz et al. (7,673,713).
As to independent claim 5, Betz et al. teaches a Geomagnetic device comprising a switch breaker (24), a coupling (30), a motor (22) and a generator (20) as shown in figure 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (7,888,916).
As to independent claim 5, Taylor teaches Geomagnetic device comprising switch breaker (4), a coupling (14), a motor (10) and a generator (12) as shown in figure 1.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farkas (US PG Pub 2005/0173925).
As to independent claim 5, Farkas teaches a Geomagnetic device comprising switch breaker (20), a coupling (40, 44, 46, 42, 30 and 60), a motor (50) and a generator (30) as shown in figure 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN202855635) in view of Hamilton (US PG Pub 2012/0153618).
As to independent claim 2, Zhou et al. teaches a geomagnetic switch to realize the switching on/off of the circuit (as a switch breaker) as shown in figure 3, but Zhou et al. doesn’t teach a coupling, a motor and a generator.
However Hamilton teaches a coupling (42), a motor (34) and a generator (32) as shown in figure 3C, for the advantageous benefit of providing the force, and the energy generated by the generator comprises second form of energy different from the first energy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhou et al. by using a coupling, a motor and a generator, as taught by Hamilton, to provide the force, and the energy generated by the generator comprises second form of energy different from the first energy.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN202855635) in view of Hamilton (US PG Pub 2012/0153618).
As to independent claim 5, Zhou et al. teaches a geomagnetic switch to realize the switching on/off of the circuit (as a switch breaker) as shown in figure 3, but Zhou et al. doesn’t teach a coupling, a motor and a generator.
However Hamilton teaches a coupling (42), a motor (34) and a generator (32) as shown in figure 3C, for the advantageous benefit of providing the force, and the energy generated by the generator comprises second form of energy different from the first energy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhou et al. by using a coupling, a motor and a generator, as taught by Hamilton, to provide the force, and the energy generated by the generator comprises second form of energy different from the first energy.
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 JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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, OLUSEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571)270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 December 4, 2025