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 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 – 8, 11 – 16, and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pole-piece structure” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘pole-piece structure’ previously set forth in the preamble, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘pole-piece structure’ which is separate and independent from the ‘pole-piece structure’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘pole-piece structure’ previously set forth.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein stacking the plurality of laminate plates comprises ...” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the step of ‘stacking the plurality of laminate plates’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second step of ‘stacking’ which is separate and independent from the ‘stacking’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to, and further define, the step of ‘stacking the plurality of laminate plates’ previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the pole-piece” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘pole-piece structure’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a ‘pole-piece’ which is separate and independent from the ‘pole-piece structure’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner is will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘pole-piece structure’ previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “each channel” twice in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to the ‘one or more channels’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to ‘channels’ other than the ‘one or more channels.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the one or more channels.”
Claim 1 further recites a first limitation of “wherein the cast or molded non-magnetic material completely fills each channel of the one or more channels ...” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim and a second limitation of “wherein the casting or molding comprises forming cavities at each of a first end and a second end of said one or more channels” in the fifth paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitations are indefinite because if each of the channels are ‘completely filled’ with the non-magnetic material, as required by the first limitation, then it is unclear as to how the non-magnetic material can form a ‘cavity’ at first and second ends of each of the channels, as required by the second limitation. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the first limitation as “wherein the cast or molded non-magnetic material at least partially fills each channel of the one or more channels ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said channels” in the fifth paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said one or more channels.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 16, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner’s closest art, Tojima (International Publication Number WO 2015/137392 A1) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0284512), Buttner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0372546), and Bendixen (International Publication Number WO 2015/197067 A1), was presented and discussed in the previous Office Action.
As previously explained, Tojima in view of Buttner teaches casting a non-magnetic material within a plurality of channels provided in a pole-piece structure (figure 2, elements 24 being the ‘plurality of cavities’; paragraph 44, wherein the ‘casting compound’ is the ‘non-magnetic material’), wherein the casting non-magnetic material at least partially fills each channel of the plurality of channels (figure 2, elements 24; paragraph 44). However, the prior art does not teach or make obvious the casting comprising forming cavities at each of a first end and a second end of said plurality of channels, the cavities being formed in end portions of resin cases located within said plurality of channels.
Examiner recognizes that Bendixen teaches a pole-piece structure comprising a plurality of cavities at first and second ends of the pole-piece structure (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘pole-piece structure and elements 51 and 52 being the ‘plurality of cavities’; page 6, lines 25 - 26). However, Bendixen teaches the pole-piece structure as comprising a plurality of longitudinally extending structures, wherein each of the plurality of longitudinally extending structures comprises the cavities (figure 1, elements 3, 51, and 52; page 6, lines 25 – 30), rather than a plurality of stacked, ring-shaped, laminate plates held together by a non-magnetic material, as made obvious by Tojima in view of Lee and Buttner. Therefore, there is insufficient motivation to provide the cast, non-magnetic material of Tojima in view of Buttner with the cavities of Bendixen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights