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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to missing reference signs and other informalities. The Applicant provided replacement drawings received 3/11/2026 and amended the specification with respect to the drawings to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification and abstract were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the specification and abstract to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn. A new objection to abstract is added.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claims 1, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the claims to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-5 and 7 were rejected as being anticipated by Tracy. Claim 8 was rejected as being obvious over Tracy in view of Anderson. Claims 9-10 were rejected as being obvious over Tracy in view of Lee and Okada. Claims 11 and 13-15 were rejected as being obvious over Tracy in view of Lee. Claims 16-17 and 20-22 were rejected as being obvious over Tracy in view of Nagaba. Claims 18-19 were rejected as being obvious over Tracy in view of Nagaba and Anderson. Claim 23 was rejected as being obvious over Tracy in view of Nagaba and Lee. The Applicant amended claims 1-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the “magnetically polarizable material” of claim 1 meaning a material becoming polarized upon insertion into the external magnetic field between permanent magnets to modify the magnet-to-magnet interaction during operation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract (as a single paragraph, 50-150 words) of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5 line 3 it appears that the reference characters (60, 130) was also meant to be removed along with the other reference characters.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,703,653 to Tracy et al. (hereinafter Tracy; cited by Applicant on 4/12/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Tracy teaches an apparatus for moving a movable module thereof based on magnetic interactions, the apparatus comprising:
a stationary module (FIG. 16; 61, 62) having a plurality of first permanent magnets (FIG. 15, 50), and
a movable module (FIG. 16, 55) arranged movably with respect to the stationary module and having a plurality of second permanent magnets (FIG. 15; 51), wherein the plurality of the first permanent magnets and the plurality of second permanent magnets are arranged on the stationary module and the movable module, respectively, so that upon a movement of the movable module same magnetic poles of a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet are directed to each other (FIG. 15; 50, 51),
characterized by further comprising a plurality of polarizer elements (FIG. 16, 73) being made of magnetically polarizable material (Column 4 lines 60-61) and being arranged in the same number as the plurality of the first permanent magnets (Column 4 lines 58-60), and
the plurality of polarizer elements are arranged movably with respect to the stationary module (Column 4 lines 63-65) so that each of the polarizer elements can be moved to be arranged between a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet,
the apparatus is configured such that during an operation of the apparatus a movement of the movable module is exclusively based on magnetic interactions (Column 5 lines 1-16), wherein continuously during the operation of the apparatus for the movement of the movable module by means of moving of polarizer elements (Column 4 lines 63-65)
a pushing effect is present between the same magnetic poles a first pair of a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet (Column 5 lines 1-3), and
a pulling effect is present between a second permanent magnet and a polarizer element being moved into between a second pair of a first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnet (Column 5 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 2, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that each of the plurality of polarizer elements are adapted for covering a respective first permanent magnet (FIG. 16, 73).
Regarding claim 3, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that the movable module is implemented by a movable disc (FIG. 16, 55) arranged rotatable with respect to the stationary module and the plurality of second permanent magnets are arranged at a first periphery of the movable disc (FIG. 16, 51).
Regarding claim 4, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, characterized in that
the stationary module is implemented by a stationary ring (FIG. 18, spacer between 61 and 62) arranged around the movable disc,
the plurality of first permanent magnets are arranged on an inner periphery of the stationary ring (FIG. 18, 50), and the plurality of second permanent magnets are arranged at the first periphery of the movable disc (FIG. 18, 51) being the outer periphery thereof, and
a polarizer element corresponds to each of the first permanent magnets (FIG. 20; 73, 50), and each of the plurality of polarizer elements is moveable to a working position, wherein a respective polarizer element is arranged at the inner periphery of the stationary ring in front of a first permanent magnet corresponding to the respective polarizer element (FIG. 20, 73).
Regarding claim 5, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, characterized in that each of the polarizer elements are fixed to a respective guiding element (FIG. 16, 74) moveable along a respective guiding shaft arrangement (FIG. 16, 55) adapted for moving the respective polarizer element to the working position and out of the working position (Column 4 lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 7, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, characterized in that the first permanent magnets are arranged equidistantly on the inner periphery of the stationary ring (FIG. 21, 50) and the second permanent magnets are arranged equidistantly on the outer periphery of the movable disc (FIG. 21, 51).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,267,647 to Anderson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 8, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 7.
Tracy does not teach a first magnet number of the plurality of first permanent magnets of the stationary ring being different from a second magnet number of the plurality of second permanent magnets of the movable disc.
However, Anderson teaches an apparatus with a first magnet number of first permanent magnets of a stationary ring (FIG. 9, 142) being different (Column 9 lines 7-11) from a second magnet number of the plurality of second permanent magnets (FIG. 9, 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy with the different magnet numbers of Anderson to fine tune and optimize the rotation of the apparatus.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy in view of Korean Patent No. 10-2006-0028798 to Lee and Japanese Patent No. H05-56620 to Okada et al. (hereinafter Okada).
Regarding claim 9, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Tracy does not teach that a circular control element is fixed to the movable disc, wherein
the circular control element comprises a cylindrical side wall having an axis coincident with an axis of rotation of the movable disc and having, at a first distance from the movable disc, a plurality of transparent portions and a plurality of blocking portions, an optical source adapted for emitting light along a light path and an optical receiver adapted for receiving the light emitted by the optical source and arranged on the light path are arranged in a fixed manner with respect of the stationary ring so that during a rotation of the moving disc a transparent portion or a blocking portion of the cylindrical side wall is in the light path,
the plurality of blocking portions of the cylindrical side wall are arranged in a same blocking portion number as a first permanent magnet number of the plurality of first permanent magnets, a respective projected transparent arc portion overlapping at least partially with a first permanent magnet arc of the inner periphery of the stationary ring corresponds to each of the plurality of first permanent magnets, the plurality of transparent portions and the plurality of blocking portions are arranged in the cylindrical side wall so that, when during a rotation of the movable disc, a radial centreline of a second permanent magnet is within a projected transparent arc portion, a transparent portion of the cylindrical side wall is in the light path, and
during an operation of the apparatus, a polarizer element corresponding to a respective first permanent magnet is in the working position when the radial centrelines of the plurality of second permanent magnets are outside a projected transparent arc portion corresponding to the respective first permanent magnet.
However, Lee teaches a circular control element (FIG. 2, top of 11a) fixed to the movable disc, wherein the circular control element comprises a cylindrical side wall (FIG. 2, 14) having an axis coincident with an axis of rotation of the movable disc and having, at a first distance from the movable disc, a plurality of transparent portions (FIG. 2, between cams 14) and a plurality of blocking portions (FIG. 2, 14), the plurality of blocking portions being arranged in a same blocking portion number as a first permanent magnet number of the plurality of first permanent magnets (FIG. 2, 14), a respective projected transparent arc portion overlapping at least partially with a first permanent magnet arc (FIG. 2, 14, 24) of the inner periphery of the stationary ring corresponds to each of the plurality of first permanent magnets, the plurality of transparent portions and the plurality of blocking portions are arranged in the cylindrical side wall so that, when during a rotation of the movable disc, a radial centreline of a second permanent magnet is within a projected transparent arc portion, a transparent portion of the cylindrical side wall is in the path between them (FIG. 2, 25), and during an operation of the apparatus, a polarizer element corresponding to a respective first permanent magnet is in the working position when the radial centrelines of the plurality of second permanent magnets are outside a projected transparent arc portion corresponding to the respective first permanent magnet (FIG. 2: the polarizer element is in working position when the cam is in the transparent portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy with the cams of Lee to provide further automated control and ensure proper function for the positioning of the polarizer elements.
Tracy in view of Lee does not teach an optical source adapted for emitting light along a light path and an optical receiver adapted for receiving the light emitted by the optical source and arranged on the light path being arranged in a fixed manner with respect of the stationary ring so that during a rotation of the movable disc a transparent portion or a blocking portion of the cylindrical side wall is in the light path.
However, Okada teaches a motor with an optical source (Paragraph [0013]) adapted for emitting light along a light path and an optical sensor (FIG. 1, 5) adapted for receiving the light emitted by the optical source arranged on the light path arranged in a fixed manner on a stationary part (FIG. 1, 6) so that during rotation of a rotor (FIG. 1, 1) a flange (FIG. 1, 2) of the rotor has a transparent portion (FIG. 1, 3a) and a blocking portion (FIG. 1, 3b) being in the light path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy in view of Lee with the optical sensing of Okada to provide a contactless detection scheme for control of the apparatus that can result in less wear and maintenance of the components.
Regarding claim 10, Tracy in view of Lee and Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, characterized by comprising a first polarizer moving arrangement (Lee FIG. 2, 18) for holding and moving independently each of the plurality of polarize element, being controllable by means of a control signal generated by the optical receiver adapted based on receipt of the light emitted by the optical source (Okada Paragraph [0014]; the moving arrangements of Tracy are controlled by solenoids similar to the coils of Okada).
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 11, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of polarizer elements are arranged in the same number as the plurality of the first permanent magnets of the first stationary ring (Column 4 lines 58-60).
Tracy does not teach a first stationary ring and a second stationary ring arranged around a first movable disc and a second movable disc, respectively, being arranged for the plurality of polarizer elements, wherein
the first movable disc and the second movable disc are connected to each other in an angular displacement wherein the first permanent magnets are alternately arranged in the first movable disc and the second movable disc, and
the guiding shaft arrangements corresponding to the plurality of polarizer elements connect the first stationary ring and the second stationary ring so that each of the polarizer elements are moveable to a first polarizer working position and a second polarizer working position, wherein in the first polarizer working position the respective polarizer element is inserted between the first stationary ring and the first movable disc, as well as in the second polarizer working position the respective polarizer element is inserted between the second stationary ring and the second movable disc.
However, Lee teaches a first stationary ring (FIG. 1, 10a) and a second stationary ring (FIG. 1, 10b) arranged around a first movable disc (FIG. 1, 11a) and a second movable disc (FIG. 1, 11b), respectively, being arranged for the plurality of polarizer elements (FIG. 1, 13), wherein
the first movable disc and the second movable disc are connected to each other (FIG. 5, 22) in an angular displacement wherein the first permanent magnets are alternately arranged in the first movable disc and the second movable disc (FIG. 7; 11a, 11b), and
the guiding shaft arrangements corresponding to the plurality of polarizer elements connect the first stationary ring and the second stationary ring (FIG. 2, 18) so that each of the polarizer elements are moveable to a first polarizer working position and a second polarizer working position, wherein in the first polarizer working position the respective polarizer element is inserted between the first stationary ring and the first movable disc, as well as in the second polarizer working position the respective polarizer element is inserted between the second stationary ring and the second movable disc (Translation page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy with the multiple modules of Lee to increase the total power output of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Tracy in view of Lee teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein Lee further teaches a polarizer moving arrangement adapted for moving independently of each other each of the plurality of polarizer elements via moving each guiding element along the respective guiding shaft arrangement (FIG. 5, 18).
Regarding claim 14, Tracy in view of Lee teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein Tracy further teaches each guiding element being moveable by means of a respective controlling elongated element (FIG. 20, 81) connected to the respective guiding element, wherein each controlling elongated element is elongated in a moving direction of the respective guiding element.
Regarding claim 15, Tracy in view of Lee teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein Lee further teaches that multiple working units of a pair of a first stationary ring and a second stationary ring arranged around a first movable disc and a second movable disc, respectively, are arranged along a main shaft (FIG. 1, 22), and the guiding elements corresponding to each of the pairs of the first stationary ring and the second stationary ring are arranged in controlling rows (FIG. 2, 16), and the guiding element of each controlling row are connected to a respective controlling elongated element (FGI. 2, pin between 16 and 13).
Claims 16-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,831,296 to Nagaba.
Regarding claim 16, Tracy teaches the apparatus according to claim 3 characterized in that the stationary module is implemented by a stationary disc (FIG. 18, spacer between 61 and 62) and the plurality of first permanent magnets are arranged at a second periphery of the stationary disc (FIG. 18, 50) with their respective magnetic poles arranged on a base plate of the stationary disc, wherein the second periphery having the same radius as the first periphery and the plurality of second permanent magnets are arranged with their respective magnetic poles arranged on a base plate of the movable disc (FIG. 16, 51).
Tracy does not teach the plurality of polarizer elements being arranged in an annular arrangement and incorporated into a polarizer disc, and the polarizer disc being arranged between the stationary disc and the movable disc, wherein the stationary disc, the movable disc, and the polarizer disc are arranged along a main shaft.
However, Nagaba teaches a plurality of polarizer elements (FIG. 1, 4) arranged in an annular arrangement and incorporated into a polarizer disc, and the polarizer disc being arranged between the stationary disc (FIG. 1, 3) and the movable disc (FIG. 1, 1), wherein the stationary disc, the movable disc, and the polarizer disc are arranged along a main shaft (FIG. 1, 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy with the polarizer disc of Nagaba to provide a more stable and secure singular structure for the polarizer elements.
Regarding claim 17, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein Tracy further teaches that the first permanent magnets are arranged equidistantly at the second periphery of the stationary disc (FIG. 21, 50) and the second permanent magnets are arranged equidistantly at the first periphery of the movable disc (FIG. 21, 51).
Regarding claim 20, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein Nagaba further teaches that neighboring polarizer elements in the annular arrangement are interconnected with each other by means of polarizer interconnections being made of the same material as the plurality of polarizer elements (FIG. 1, portions around hole 6).
Regarding claim 21, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein Nagaba further teaches a polarizer moving arrangement (FIG. 1, 8) adapted for rotating the polarizer disc (Column 1 line 66-Column 2 line 15).
Regarding claim 22, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, wherein Nagaba further teaches that driving teeth (FIG. 1, 8E) are formed on or connected to an outer periphery of the polarizer disc and the polarizer moving arrangement comprises a driving gear (FIG. 1, 8D) fitting to the driving teeth and adapted for rotating the polarizer disc.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy in view of Nagaba and in further view of Anderson.
Regarding claim 18, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Tracy in view of Nagaba does not teach that a third magnet number of the first permanent magnets of the stationary disc is half of a fourth magnet number of the second permanent magnets of the movable disc.
However, Anderson teaches an apparatus with a stationary ring having permanent magnets (FIG. 9, 142) and a movable disc with permanent magnets (FIG. 9, 140) wherein the number of permanent magnets can be varied (Column 9 lines 7-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy in view of Nagaba with the different magnet numbers of Anderson to fine tune and optimize the rotation of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 16.
Tracy in view of Nagaba and Anderson does not teach that a polarizer arc size of a polarizer element on the first periphery of the polarizer disc is between a magnet distant arc size corresponding to the distance between two neighboring second permanent magnet on the first periphery of the movable disc and the magnet distance arc size added to one and a half of second permanent magnet arc size corresponding to a second permanent magnet on the first periphery.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have modified the relative arc sizes of the polarizer and magnets to match that of the claimed invention as a matter of design choice to fine tune and optimize the rotation of the apparatus (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy in view of Nagaba and in further view of Lee.
Regarding claim 23, Tracy in view of Nagaba teaches the apparatus according to claim 16.
Tracy in view of Nagaba does not teach multiple second working units of a polarizer disc arranged between a stationary disc and a movable disc being arranged along the second main shaft.
However, Lee teaches multiple working units of a polarizer element (FIG. 1, 13) being arranged between a stationary disc (FIG. 1; 10a, 10b) and a movable disc (FIG. 1; 11a, 11b) along a main shaft (FIG. 1, 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tracy in view of Nagaba with the multiple modules of Lee to increase the total power output of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 recites the claim limitation of a stationary compensator arrangement part and a movable compensator arrangement part respectively fixed to the stationary ring and the guiding element having magnet arrangements to facilitate movement of the polarizer element out of the working position. None of the prior art of record teaches this claim limitation.
Claim 12 recites the claim limitation of a stationary compensator arrangement part and a movable compensator arrangement part respectively fixed to the stationary rings and guiding element having magnet arrangements opposing each other. None of the prior art of record teaches this claim limitation.
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834