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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 12-02-2021. As directed, claims 1-25 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Switzerland on 06-07-2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Swiss application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings lack uniformly thick and well-defined dark lines (see Figs. 1 and 20-22). The drawings appear to be photographs of 3D models which are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b).
The reference numeral “32” as seen in Figure 5 is not described in the specification.
The reference numeral “44” has been used to label more than one element in Figure 6.
The reference numeral “19” in Figure 10 is partially out of view.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The term “elastic element” in claims 9-10 is interpreted relative to the instant specification at page 15 to be a spring or coil spring or functional equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 18-19, and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 1, it is suggested that a colon be added following “comprising”.
At claim 1, line 4, it is suggested that “comprising” be replaced with “comprises” for clarity.
At claim 1, line 5, it is suggested that “in that” be eliminated for clarity.
At claim 4, line 3, it is suggested that “this” be changed to “the” for clarity and consistency.
At claim 5, line 1, it is suggested that the reference numeral “(10)” be eliminated.
At claim 6, line 4, it is suggested that “the orientation” be replaced with “an orientation” as the term has not yet been introduced.
At claim 8, line 5, it is suggested that “the full” be replaced with “a full” as the term has not yet been introduced.
At claim 8, line 6, it is suggested that “the position” be replaced with “a position” as the term has not yet been introduced.
At claim 11, line 2, it is suggested that “the frequency range” be replaced with “a frequency range” as the term has not been previously introduced.
At claim 12, line 2, it is suggested that “the amplitude” be replaced with “an amplitude” as the term has not yet been introduced.
At claim 12, line 12, it is suggested that “an oscillatory motion” be replaced with “the oscillatory motion” as the term was introduced in claim 1, line 2.
At claim 13, lines 3-4, it is suggested that “a material capable to absorb heat” be replaced with “a material capable of absorbing heat” for clarity.
At claim 18, line 2, it is suggested that “the range” be replaced with “a range” as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
At claim 19, line 2, it is suggested that “Hz” be added following “60” for consistency.
At claim 22, line 1, it is suggested that “further” be added before “comprising” for clarity.
At claim 23, line 3, it is suggested that “in a” be replaced with “into a” for clarity.
At claim 23, line 4, it is suggested that “in an” be replaced with “into an” for clarity.
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 1-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 2 recites “can be” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, lines 2-3 recite the phrase “a high saturation level” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high saturation” is not defined by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the term “high saturation” will be interpreted to be a material with a saturation level of 1 T or greater as outlined in the specification.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, line 2 recites the phrase “good heat transfer properties” renders the claim indefinite. The term “high saturation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of this term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the term “good heat transfer properties” will be interpreted to be a material, such as a metal, known in the art to be capable of withstanding and absorbing heat.
Regarding claim 14, line 5 recites “can be” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, line 5 recites “more suitably” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, line 3 recites “and optionally” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, it is unclear if this limitation is in addition to the previously claimed ranges in the claim or listed as an alternate since it is preceded by the word “and”.
For the purposes of examination, the three ranges will be read as alternates, and so if one of the three recited ranges is met by the prior art, then the claim language will be deemed met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-19, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Planke (US 2016/0206503) in view of Chung (US 2019/0068039).
Regarding claim 1, Planke discloses a vibration generator (34) (paragraph 75, lines 5-6; paragraph 98, lines 1-3; paragraph 108, lines 1-2; Figs. 7 and 12) comprising:
a coil (35), a permanent magnet (48), and a housing (1”), wherein the permanent magnet (48) can be set in an oscillatory motion with respect to the housing (1”) by applying a current to the coil (35) (paragraph 98, lines 1-6; paragraph 107, lines 11-17; paragraph 116, lines 4-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-9; Figs. 7 and 12; Examiner notes that the by virtue of connection to wires, coil 35 is understood to be energized via a current), and
the vibration generator (34) further comprises an axle (37), wherein the oscillatory motion is along the axle (37), and the coil (35) is fixed to the housing (1”) (paragraph 98, lines 1-6; paragraph 107, lines 11-17, note the axial movement of magnet 48, and its attachment to shaft 37; paragraph 116, lines 4-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-9; Figs. 7 and 12).
While Planke indicates that the permanent magnet is made to have a mass larger than the housing (paragraph 18, lines 1-5), Planke fails to explicitly disclose a mass, wherein the mass comprises the permanent magnet.
However, Chung teaches a vibration generator including a permanent magnet (600) which includes a mass (700) fixed on the magnet (600) (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; Fig. 1).
Given that Planke indicates that the permanent magnet should have a mass greater than the housing, and that both Planke and Chung describe vibration generators employing permanent magnets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the permanent magnet of Planke to include a mass surrounding it, as taught by Chung, such that the mass comprises the permanent magnet by virtue of the mass encircling the permanent magnet, and thus resulting in oscillatory motion of the mass in conjunction with the permanent magnet.
Regarding claim 2, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the permanent magnet (48) is a ring magnet, wherein the ring magnet and the coil (35) are arranged concentrically around the axle (37) (note Fig. 7 which shows that 48 and 35 are oriented concentrically around 37, and Fig. 14 where 48 is shown to be annular).
Regarding claim 3, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Planke further discloses wherein the mass (see Planke’s 48 which by modification includes a mass, i.e. Chung’s 700 encircling it, and based on the claim language, the mass comprises the permanent magnet, and thus slit 48’’’’ contained in permanent magnet 48 is a part of the mass) comprises a slit (Planke: 48’’’’), wherein the slit (Planke: 48’’’’) is arranged concentrically with respect to the axle (Planke: 37) and wherein the coil (Planke: 35) is arranged in the slit (Planke: 48’’’’) (Planke: paragraph 111, lines 1-8; Fig. 7, where 48’’’’ is arranged concentrically with respect to 37 and coil 35 is within 48’’’’).
Regarding claim 9, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) comprises an elastic element (see 49, 50, 93, and 94) that centers the mass (see Planke’s 48 which by modification includes a mass, i.e. Chung’s 700 encircling it) when the vibration generator (34) is not powered (paragraph 100, lines 1-7; Fig. 7, note permanent magnet 48, which as modified includes a mass 700 of Chung concentrically wrapping it, centrally fixed on the axle 37 in the rest position).
Regarding claim 10, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the elastic element (see 49, 50, 93, and 94) is compressed during operation of the vibration generator (34) (paragraph 113, lines 1-8 and Fig. 7, where the springs are tensioned and compressed).
Regarding claim 11, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured to have its basic harmonic outside the frequency range in which the vibration generator (34) is operated (paragraph 80, lines 1-7 and paragraph 82, lines 1-3, see 10-150 Hz range; Examiner notes that a basic harmonic is a single frequency value, i.e. a fundamental frequency, and given that the frequency range includes multiple values, the generator is configured to output vibration at frequencies other than its basic harmonic given the frequency range disclosed).
Regarding claim 12, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 11, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured to have no harmonics of significance with respect to the amplitude of the oscillatory motion of the mass in the frequency range in which the vibration generator (34) is operated (paragraph 80, lines 1-7 and paragraph 82, lines 1-3, see 10-150 Hz range; Examiner notes that a basic harmonic is a single frequency value, i.e. a fundamental frequency, and the harmonics of an object repeat at intervals of this frequency, i.e. if the harmonic is 10, then it repeats at 20, 30, and so on, but given that the frequency range includes multiple values, and that the generator can be selected to be operated at a single “selected value”, the generator is configured to output vibration at frequencies and amplitudes other than its harmonics given the frequency range disclosed, i.e. the generator could be selected to be operated at a single frequency and amplitude that is different from the device’s harmonics).
Regarding claim 14, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses a signal processing unit (25), wherein the signal processing unit (25) is configured to superimpose a control signal used for the oscillatory motion of the mass (see Planke’s 48 which by modification includes a mass, i.e. Chung’s 700 encircling it) with a further signal, wherein the further signal and the vibration generator (34) are configured in a manner that an audible signal can be generated from the further signal by the vibration generator (34) (paragraph 88, lines 1-6 and paragraph 89, lines 1-7, note “superimpose”; paragraph 77, lines 1-9, note the term “white noise” for audible; also note that the frequency range of 10-150 Hz in paragraph 82 is within the audible range for human hearing).
Regarding claim 15, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator is configured to sweep over a plurality of frequencies (paragraph 80, lines 4-7, see “stochastically varying”).
Regarding claim 16, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured to oscillate at a frequency of not less than 10 Hz (paragraph 82, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured to oscillate at a frequency of not more than 2000 Hz, 1900 Hz, 1800 Hz, 1700 Hz, 1600 Hz, 1500 Hz, 1400 Hz, or 1300 Hz (paragraph 82, lines 1-3, where 10-150 Hz are all less than each of the claimed values, and thus the generator does not oscillate with a frequency more than any of the claimed values).
Regarding claim 18, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured for oscillations in the range of 1-2000 Hz (paragraph 82, lines 1-3; note MPEP 2131.03 I-II, where a prior art range is anticipatory if it includes examples within the claimed range, or touches the claimed range, where 10-150 Hz lies within the range of 1-2000 Hz within the claim).
Regarding claim 19, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured to sweep over a frequency range of about 60 Hz to 1300 Hz, or a section thereof (paragraph 80, lines 4-7, see “stochastically varying” and paragraph 82, lines 1-3, where 10-150 Hz is a section of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 21, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses applying oscillations to a subject to be stimulated using the vibration generator (34) (paragraph 2, lines 1-4; paragraph 98, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 22, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 21, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses a device head and a device body, wherein the vibration generator (34) is arranged in the device head (see Fig. 12, where the device body is the portion of the device including housing 1” and its additional components thereon, and the device head is the portion of the device at which 34 is mounted; see paragraph 70 and paragraph 98, lines 1-8, and paragraph 108, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 25, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses a method for treating a subject with oscillations, characterized by a step of bringing a device including the vibration generator (34) in contact with the subject (paragraph 2, lines 1-4; paragraph 98, lines 1-12; Figs. 7 and 12).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Planke (US 2016/0206503) in view of Chung (US 2019/0068039), as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Chari (US 3,816,776).
Regarding claim 4, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 3, as discussed above.
Modified Planke further discloses wherein the mass (see Planke’s 48 which by modification includes a mass, i.e. Chung’s 700 encircling it, and based on the claim language, the mass comprises the permanent magnet, and thus slit 48’’’’ contained in permanent magnet 48 is a part of the mass) and the permanent magnet (Planke: 48) are configured to generate a field in a section of the slit (Planke 48’’’’), wherein the field runs radial to the axle (Planke: 37) in the section of the slit (Planke: 48’’’’) (paragraph 98, lines 1-14; paragraph 108, lines 9-14, note application of electrical signal; paragraph 111, lines 1-8; Examiner notes that the permanent magnet is understood to generate a magnetic field, and by virtue of connection to wires, coil 35 is understood to be energized via a current, and the magnetic field from the permanent magnet is understood to be generated in a radial direction around the coil 35 based on physical principles of magnetic flux and direction, and given the radial/concentric position of the slit 48’’’’ relative to the axle, the magnetic field is understood to be radial to the axle as well; note that the section of the slit is where the coil 35 overlaps with the slit 48’’’’).
Modified Planke fails to disclose wherein the field is homogenous.
However, Chari teaches a permanent magnet (209A and 209B) which produces a constant magnetic field within slits (208A and 208B) (Col. 5, line 63-Col. 6, line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the permanent magnet of Planke could reasonably be selected to induce a homogenous magnetic field, as taught by Chari, as a known material and physical property of the permanent magnet.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Planke (US 2016/0206503) in view of Chung (US 2019/0068039) in further view of Chari (US 3,816,776), as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Pinter (US 2012/0147444).
Regarding claim 5, Planke in view of Chung and Chari disclose the vibration generator of claim 4, as discussed above.
Planke further disclose wherein the section is formed between a core ring and a core bottom (see Planke at Fig. 7, where slit 48’’’’ extends a vertical distance, and the core bottom is the portion of permanent magnet 48 at the top of the slit which encloses the coil 35, and the core ring is the section of the permanent magnet 48 that allows for insertion of coil 35 at its opened end).
Planke fails to explicitly disclose that the core ring is made of a material having a high saturation level and wherein the core bottom is configured not to exceed a saturation limit of the material having the high saturation level.
However, Pinter teaches a permanent magnet saturable up to 1.4 Tesla which increase a magnetic field strength (paragraph 43, lines 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordainry skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the permanent magnet of modified Planke to include a high saturation level of 1.4 Tesla, as taught by Pinter, in order to increase the strength of the magnetic field induced. Thus, as modified, given that the core ring and the core bottom are portions of the permanent magnet, and the permanent magnet includes a single material capable of saturating up to 1.4 T, the core bottom would be configured so as not to exceed that saturation limit of the core ring, as both the ring and the bottom have the same saturation limit by virtue of their shared material.
Regarding claim 6, Planke in view of Chung, Chari, and Pinter disclose the vibration generator of claim 5, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein an extension of the coil (35) in a direction parallel to the axle (37) is smaller than an extension of the section in a direction parallel to the axle (37) and wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured such that the coil (35) is in the section independent of the orientation of the vibration generator (34) (see Fig. 7, where the slit 48’’’’ is longer longitudinally than the coil 35, further note paragraph 111, lines 1-8 and the fixed nature of spacers 62, 63, 68, 69, 81, and 82 in Figure 7, such that the coil 35, even when moving relative to the slit 48’’’’, is fixed in a position inside the slit 48’’’’).
Regarding claim 7, Planke in view of Chung, Chari, and Pinter disclose the vibration generator of claim 5, as discussed above.
Modified Planke further discloses wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured for oscillatory motion being restricted between two positions of maximum deflection of the mass (as modified, Chung’s 700 surrounding Planke’s permanent magnet 48) and wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured for the coil (35) being predominantly in the section of the homogenous field (paragraph 98, lines 1-14; paragraph 111, lines 1-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-25; Fig. 7, note coil 35 is predominantly overlapped by the slit 48’’’’ along its longitudinal section; note the homogenous field as modified in claim 4 by Chari).
Regarding claim 8, Planke in view of Chung, Chari, and Pinter disclose the vibration generator of claim 5, as discussed above.
Modified Planke further discloses wherein an extension of the coil (35) in a direction parallel to the axle (37) is larger than an extension of the section in a direction parallel to the axle (37) (note in Fig. 7 that the coil extends leftward outside of the slit 48’’’’, and given that the section is the portion of the slit 48’’’’ that the coil 35 overlaps with, the coil extends longer than the section), wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured for oscillatory motion being restricted between two positions of maximum deflection of the mass (as modified, Chung’s 700 surrounding Planke’s permanent magnet 48) and wherein the vibration generator (34) is configured for the coil (35) being predominantly in the section of the homogenous field (paragraph 98, lines 1-14; paragraph 111, lines 1-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-25; Fig. 7, note coil 35 is predominantly overlapped by the slit 48’’’’ along its longitudinal section).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Planke (US 2016/0206503) in view of Chung (US 2019/0068039), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Song (US 2012/0184883).
Regarding claim 13, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 1, as discussed above.
Planke further discloses wherein the coil (35) is mounted on a support (35”) (paragraph 111, lines 1-8).
Planke fails to explicitly disclose that the support has good heat transfer properties, and wherein the support is in thermal connection to the housing, with the housing made of a material capable of absorbing heat generated by the coil.
However, Song teaches a vibrational unit including an electromagnetic coil, wherein the housing and the coil form a thermal circuit to transfer heat from the vibrational unit (see claims 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordainry skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support of Planke to be of a material with good heat transfer properties and to be in thermal connection with the housing and to have further modified the material of the housing to be capable of heat absorption, as taught by Song, to enable transfer of heat from the coil and its associated support to the housing and out of the vibrational unit.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Planke (US 2016/0206503) in view of Chung (US 2019/0068039), as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Farkas (WO 2010/113046).
Regarding claim 20, Planke in view of Chung disclose the vibration generator of claim 19, as discussed above.
Planke fails to disclose wherein the sweep occurs over a time period of at most about 60 s, 45 s, 30 s, 25 s, 20 s, 15 s, 10 s, or 5s.
However, Farkas teaches a vibrational generator (11) (abstract, lines 1-15) which includes sweeping of frequencies within a range, wherein the sweep occurs over a time period of 55 seconds (see Fig. 5, where the frequency sweep from 0-1500 Hz occurs in less than 1 second, where less than one second is less than 5 seconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Planke to include a sweep time of no more than 5 seconds, as taught by Farkas, as a known sweep time value in the art of vibration generators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest identified prior art of record regarding claims 23-24 is Lee (KR 101866100). Noting the prior art rejection employing Lee in abandoned application 17/596,091, particularly claims 17-19, it is noteworthy that the ‘091 application did not also require a vibration generator including each of a mass, a coil, a permanent magnet, and a housing, wherein oscillatory motion of the mass occurs along an axle. Rather, claim 27 of the ‘091 application merely required oscillation along an axis of the device. Given that an axle, by definition, is a pin or shaft on or with which a wheel revolves, Lee does not seem to include such an axle on which the mass and permanent magnet oscillate along. Further, given that the mechanism of Planke’s Figure 7 includes a different frame and set of springs than that of Lee, it is unclear how the two devices would reasonably be combined satisfactorily to result in the claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785