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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a new rejection and withdrawal of previous rejections.
On page 10 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant summarizes the interview held previously on February 4, 2026. On pages 10-11, Applicant also summarizes the changes to the Abstract in response to the previous objection. The Examiner has withdrawn this objection. Applicant also summarizes the amendments made to the claims.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection of independent Claim 22 involving primary reference Humphries et al., (“Humphries ‘184”, US 7,474,184), and secondary references Humphries et al., (“Humphries ‘128”, US 6,954,128), and Yu, (US 2013/0330739). Applicant summarizes the disclosures relied upon in these references, and then argues that these references do not disclose that the claimed soft magnetic press is not physically coupled to any magnetic flux source as presently claimed. Here, the Examiner notes that the previously used references do not disclose this added limitation and thus the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, the Examiner notes that this amendment appears to be a negative limitation with new matter and has been rejected under 112(a) as further explained in the 112 rejection section below.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection of now presently amended independent Claim 29 involving primary reference Humphries et al., (“Humphries ‘184”, US 7,474,184), and secondary references Humphries et al., (“Humphries ‘128”, US 6,954,128), and Yu, (US 2013/0330739). Applicant argues that these references do not specifically disclose the first flux loop directly between the claimed components of the soft magnetic center pole, the soft magnetic press, and the first soft magnetic side pole, or the second flux loop directly between the claimed components of the soft magnetic center pole, the soft magnetic press, and the second soft magnetic side pole. The Examiner acknowledges that the previously recited flux directions in Figures 4A or 4B of Humphries ‘184 do not specifically travel or connect the claimed components in those specific orders. Thus, the previous prior art rejection regarding Claim 29 has been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks do not present any further detailed arguments against the previous prior art rejections, and thus are considered moot.
Priority
This application is a continuation-in-part application in which it claims priority to parent case SN 16/729,398. For example, in independent Claim 22, the current application claims a “chisel edge profile with a bevel side”, which is further discussed in the instant Specification, but not discussed or claimed in the parent case. However, this limitation is discussed in the provisional application 63/406,437, which has a filing date of September 14, 2022 as pointed out by Applicant. Thus, the entirety of Claims 22-33 is given the effective filing date of September 14, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added limitation “wherein the soft magnetic press is not physically coupled to any magnetic flux source” is not positively recited in the instant Specification. While Figures 36 & 37 of the Drawings show that the magnetic press 420 is not physically in contact with the magnetic flux source (which includes the first and second permanent magnets 408/410, it does not positively recite or show how the press 420 is actually connected to the rest of the system. The Specification and Drawings do not show that the press is joined to the system completely independently of these magnets or flux sources. The possibility remains that the press is connected to some other feature that is integrally part of the overall system that includes the magnetic flux sources/magnets and thus would be physically coupled together. The Examiner finds the addition of this limitation to be negative, and thus new matter since it is not explicitly demonstrated and discussed in the instant Application.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the Examiner has withdrawn the previous prior art rejection for presently amended Claim 29 for the reasons stated above in the Response to Argument section. After conducting thorough searching and consideration of the prior art in the relevant fields of endeavor, the Examiner has determined that the limitation “wherein the magnetic flux forms a first flux loop between the soft magnetic center pole, the soft magnetic press, and the first soft magnetic side pole and a second flux loop between the soft magnetic center pole, the soft magnetic press, and the second soft magnetic side pole” in combination with the other claimed features of the claim and directed to the technology field of a magnetic device is allowable over the closest prior art Humphries et al., (“Humphries ‘184”, US 7,474,184), Humphries et al., (“Humphries ‘128”, US 6,954,128), and Yu, (US 2013/0330739), which do not explicitly teach or make obvious these flux loops based on the claimed structural arrangement of the magnetic poles. Thus, Claim 29 and its dependent claims 36-47 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779