DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that: “…Jacobs does not disclose a movable coil assembly that is "separate from and movable relative to the frame" as recited by amended claim 1.”. This argument is not persuasive because the movable coil 3 of the prior art is a separate structure from the frame 7, and is also movable while the frame remains stationary as clearly shown in the figures and supported by the disclosure.
The applicant argues that: “The characterization of Jacobs' element 3 as a "movable coil assembly" is incorrect because Jacobs' armature 3 is attracted by the magnetic field of the electromagnets, rather than being a current-carrying coil that interacts with driver coils to produce rotational torque.” The examiner cannot understand this argument because structure 3 is clearly a coil that moves, as shown in the figures and discussed in the disclosure, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
The applicant argues that: “Furthermore, Jacobs does not disclose that current flows through the one or more driver coils of the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil of the movable coil assembly as recited by claim 1. In Jacobs, current flows through the electromagnets 2 to attract the armature 3, but there is no disclosure of current flowing through both driver coils and a movable coil to generate a magnetic force that acts on the movable coil assembly.” This argument is not persuasive because the device would not operate without current being present in movable coil 3. A coil that does not have current flowing through it is not useful in general, and would not function as intended in the prior art device disclosed by Jacobs. The purpose of electromagnetic coils is to carry current in order to generate a magnetic field.
With respect to claim 3, the applicant argues that the obviousness rationale in the rejection is not applicable because “The trapezoidal shape recited in claim 3 is not merely an aesthetic or arbitrary design choice but rather serves a specific functional purpose integral to the operation of the magnetic switch.” This argument is not persuasive because there is no disclosure or explanation that points to criticality of the trapezoidal shape, where no other shapes of the coil would be capable of performing the claimed functionality. The cited paragraphs 57 and 69 do not include any explanation that points to criticality of the trapezoidal shape. Only the shape itself is mentioned without any explanation of the specific purpose of the shape and why other shapes would not be able to perform the functionality of the trapezoidal shape.
With respect to claims 6 and 8, the applicant argues that “Baumann's configuration involves electromagnets that attract an armature, not a movable coil assembly that carries current simultaneously with driver coils to generate magnetic force that produces rotational torque.” This argument is not persuasive because a movable coil is already taught by Jacobs. Only additional two coils that are claimed are missing in Jacobs. Baumann was used specifically for its teaching of having two coils on each side of an armature that functions in the same way as the movable coil of Jacobs. Both Jacobs and Baumann function on the same electromagnetic principles of using coils to create a magnetic field to provide force to a moving structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jacobs (US 1259406).
In re claim 1, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses a magnetic switch, comprising a frame (7), one or more driver coil assemblies attached to the frame, the one or more driver coil assemblies including one or more driver coils (1-2), a movable coil assembly, the movable coil assembly including a movable coil (3), the movable coil assembly being separate from and movable relative to the frame (the movable coil moves as shown in the figures and supported by the disclosure), and a rotor (structure that rotates with the coil 3) mounted on the movable coil assembly, wherein the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil assembly are arranged such that a magnetic field that is generated when current flows through the one or more driver coils of the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil of the movable coil assembly generates a magnetic force that acts on the movable coil assembly in a direction to produce rotational torque of the rotor mounted to the movable coil assembly to cause actuation of the magnetic switch (inherent functionality of the shown structure).
In re claim 2, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses the movable coil of the movable coil assembly is configured to provide forward and backward motion of the movable coil assembly depending on a direction of current flow in the movable coil (in the same way as shown by the applicant).
In re claim 4, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses that the one or more driver coil assemblies include at least a first driver coil (1) assembly and a second driver coil (2) assembly, wherein the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly are positioned on opposite sides of the movable coil assembly such that the magnetic field generated when the current flows through driver coils of the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly on the opposite sides of the movable coil assembly are balanced with each other (inherent function of the shown structure).
In re claim 5, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses that the frame (7) is made of a ferromagnetic steel material (see line 76, page 1) to prevent the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly from being pulled towards each other by the magnetic field generated when the current flows through driver coils of the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly (inherent function of the frame).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US 1259406).
In re claim 3, Jacobs teaches that the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil assembly are arranged such that the magnetic force generated when current flows through the one or more driver coils of the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil of the movable coil assembly acts on the movable coil assembly to cause rotation of the rotor to actuate the magnetic switch. Jacobs does not show a trapezoidal shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the movable coil assembly of Jacobs trapezoidal (or any other desired shape) since it has been held that changing shape of a known device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US 1259406) in view of Baumann (US 0621739).
In re claims 6 and 8, Jacobs discloses the claimed device but does not disclose two driver coil assemblies positioned on each side of the movable coil. Baumann teaches that a configuration with two coils positioned on each side of a rotor structure is known in the art (as seen in figure 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned two coils as taught by Baumann on each side (for a total of four coils) of the rotor structure of Jacobs to provide redundancy.
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 Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights