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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I in the reply filed on 18 September, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 September, 2025.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The term “pen shaped electromagnets” in claim 9 is a term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pen shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification do indicate pen-shaped as having a smaller diameter, it is unclear to the examiner what is considered smaller or what the diameter is being compared to. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as cylindrical with a diameter.
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.
(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, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Dulaimi (NPL - Technical Paper).
Regarding Claim 1, Al-Dulaimi teaches a system for magnetic field assisted abrasive finishing of a workpiece (Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a stationary electromagnetic array (Fig. 2) comprised of iron core electromagnets (Fig. 2, [System Description], describes electromagnets with iron cores) positioned to generate a dynamic magnetic field ([Conclusion] describes rotational magnetic fields);
a control system (Fig. 3, dSpace Controller) adapted to be programmed to selectively energize the electromagnets of the stationary electromagnetic array to generate the dynamic magnetic field ([1.1 - 1.2] describes the controller controls the polarity of the electromagnets to influence the magnetic field);
a plurality of magnetic abrasive particles (Fig. 2, Ref. MAPs, [1.1]); and
a jig to position the stationary electromagnetic array adjacent to a workpiece (fig. 2);
wherein the plurality of magnetic abrasive particles are introduced into the dynamic magnetic field and are caused to move relative to a surface of the workpiece by the dynamic magnetic field ([1.1-1.2]).
Regarding Claim 4, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein:
the control system is configured to send analog and digital voltage command signals to corresponding motor drives for each of the electromagnets based on stored executable instructions ([1.2] describes conversion from analog signal to digital signal to the drives); and
the command signals are configured to alter magnitude, speed, and direction of the dynamic magnetic field ([1.1-2] describes the signals are used to control the magnetic force and controlling the different forces speeds to remove from the workpiece).
Regarding Claim 5, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the dynamic magnetic field comprises one of a rotating magnetic field ([1.1] describes a rotary magnetic field), an oscillating magnetic field, or a designated pattern.
Regarding Claim 6, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein each of the electromagnets comprises:
a pure iron core ([1.1] describes an iron core, Fig. 2, core within the coil);
a copper coil wound around the iron core ([1.1] describes a copper coil around the core, Fig. 3); and
a pure iron core tip ([1.1] describes an extended iron core with a tip extending out of the coil, Fig. 2 shows the electromagnet having an extended iron core tip).
Regarding Claim 9, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein each of the electromagnets comprise pen shaped electromagnets (Fig. 2) enabling a reduced distance between adjacent electromagnets and positioning adjacent nonuniform workpieces and workpieces of varying size while producing a uniform magnetic field and required motion of the magnetic abrasive particles (Fig. 2 shows a reduced distance between electromagnets).
Regarding Claim 10, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the workpiece comprises any non-magnetic object having at least one of external and internal surfaces to be polished (Fig. 2 shows the workpiece having an external surface to be polished); and
the workpiece comprises one of curved profiles, complex-curved-profiles, irregular shapes, and regular shapes (Fig. 2 shows the workpiece having a regular shape).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Dulaimi as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Al-Dulaimi (NPL – Thesis, Al-Dulaimi 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the control system comprises:
a programmable power supply for supplying power ([1.1] describes a power supply);
a power distribution module (dSPACE, Fig. 3) connected to the DC power supply ([1.1-1.2]);
a plurality of motor drives (Dull Full-Bridge Drives, 1.2), each of the motor drives being connected to the power distribution module and adapted to provide current waveforms to a respective one of the electromagnets of the stationary electromagnetic array ([1.2]); and
a control unit (Fig. 1) comprising a host computer (Fig. 1 shows a computer) with a corresponding simulator (Simulink File, [1.1], Fig. 3) for adjusting a magnetic flux density produced by each of the electromagnets by controlling attributes of the current waveforms energizing the respective electromagnets ([1.1&1.2]);
wherein the simulator sends analog/digital signals to the motor drives and the motor drives produce the corresponding current waveform (Fig. 6, [1.2] describes analog to digital signals)
Al-Dulaimi fails to explicitly teach a programmable DC power supply for supplying DC power. Al-Dulaimi 2 teaches a system for magnetic field assisted abrasive finishing of a workpiece using electromagnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Al-Dulaimi 2 teaches a magnetic abrasive finishing system that has a control system with a power supply to control electromagnets to generate an electric field ([Abstract]) and a programmable DC power supply for supplying DC power ([1.6] describes using a direct current power supply to electromagnets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply, as taught by Al-Dulaimi, to be a DC power supply for supplying DC power, as taught by Al-Dulaimi 2, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of powering an electromagnet to generate an electric field.
Regarding Claim 3, Al-Dulaimi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Al-Dulaimi teaches wherein the current waveforms are capable of altering at least one of a strength of the dynamic magnetic field, an activation frequency of the dynamic magnetic field ([1.2] describes altering activation of the magnetic field, Fig. 6), or a direction of the dynamic magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 7, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the iron core tip is interchangeable and multiple iron core tips are provided in different shapes and sizes based on a shape and size of the workpiece and the required flux density. Al-Dulaimi 2 teaches a system for magnetic field assisted abrasive finishing of a workpiece using electromagnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Al-Dulaimi 2 teaches a system for magnetic field assisted abrasive finishing of a workpiece using electromagnets with an iron core and copper wire coils (Fig. 3) and with an iron core tip is interchangeable (Fig. 3 & 4.16, shows an electromagnet with an extended core that is removable and replaceable) and multiple iron core tips are provided in different shapes and sizes based on a shape and size of the workpiece and the required flux density (Fig. 4.12, [4.5]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the iron core tip, as taught by Al-Dulaimi, to be interchangeable and have multiple iron core tips are provided in different shapes and sizes based on a shape and size, as taught by Al-Dulaimi 2, to create different magnetic fields and concentrate the magnetic field on different areas of the workpiece ([4.5]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Dulaimi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view Koonce (2018/0233259).
Regarding Claim 8, Al-Dulaimi teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the copper coil is wound in a tapered manner at one end of the iron core to reduce a distance between adjacent electromagnets. Koonce teaches an electromagnet with copper wire and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Koonce further teaches wherein the copper coil is wound in a tapered manner at one end of the iron core (Fig. 4) to reduce a distance between adjacent electromagnets (Examiner interprets this as intended use and given the shape of the electromagnet it would be capable of reducing a distance between adjacent magnets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the electromagnet, as taught by Al-Duaimi, wherein the copper coil is wound in a tapered manner at one end of the iron core, as taught by Koonce, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of energizing a core to create an electromagnetic magnetic field [0016].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Radnezhad (2019/0270175) and Komanduri (5,957,753) teaches magnetic abrasive polishing and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723