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. Detailed Action This is the Non-Final Action for application 18/ 286403 filed 10/11/2023. This application was examined as part of the Pendency Balance program. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In Claim 1, however these terms are used through Claims 1-12 so these are included: “a driving unit that supplies,” “a current detection unit that detects,” “ an arithmetic unit that controls,” or “calculates.” Further, in Claims 2-10, also a “ storage unit that stores,” is claimed. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is noted that there is not a clear definition for these structures in the instant specification. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 are 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 claim limitations for the claimed in Claims 1-12, “ driving unit that supplies,” “ current detection unit that detects,” “ arithmetic unit that controls,” or “calculates.” Further, in Claims 2-10, also a “ storage unit that stores,” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because there are no clear structures disclosed in the instant specification for any of the claimed, “units” above. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; (b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function; (c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or (d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function. 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. Specifically—in instant PGPUB paragraph 0068 -it says that a “control unit,” which is not claimed is a “functional unit,” which “controls an operation of each unit in the sample analysis system,” so this applies to the units claimed in Claim 1, and in Claims 2-12. H owever , paragraph 0068 further discloses that it “controls an operation of each device based on various programs recorded in a storage device.” Therefore, as claimed, it is not clear if the claimed, “units,” are separate “devices,” as shown in paragraph 0068m or if instead if they are “functional units,” as described therein. If they are functional units, or if instead—if they are modules or a part of a program stored or “programmed,” or “configured,” on a structural device such as a CPU or computer . This is ambiguous in the claim since the “units,” claimed, which can seemingly be “ device ,”s or “ program,”s or “ module,”s would give the claims distinctly different interpretation. Particularly in the claimed device. 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. Claims 1-12 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. For Claims 1-12, the claimed: “ driving unit that supplies,” “ current detection unit that detects,” “ arithmetic unit that controls,” or “calculates.” Further, in Claims 2-10, also a “ storage unit that stores,” in paragraph 0068 -- states that the claimed “units,” can be devices or various programs or modules. Instant Figure 1, makes the driving unit, arithmetic unit, and storage unit look like actual different devices, and not programs or modules, however it is not disclosed anywhere, if these claimed “units,” are actually different devices or not, if so what they are exactly. For instance, is a driving unit a motor? Or, is a power source or battery of some sort? Or, if instead if the units are program parts working together or if they are something completely different. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MALINOWSKI in US 20180217174 in view of NAGASAWA in JP 2010110146 . With respect to Claim 1, MALINOWSKI teaches of a laboratory sample distribution system with a sample distribution/conveying device. The system comprises carriers to carry sample containers. MALINOWSKI teaches that e ach carrier comprises a magnetically active device. The system comprises a transport plane to support the carriers and electro-magnetic actuators stationary arranged below the transport plane (magnetic material disposed in conveyance path, as instantly claimed) . The actuators (driving unit as instantly claimed) move the carriers on top of the transport plane by applying a magnetic force /current to the carriers (abstract) . The force is from current being supplied to coils (windings as instantly claimed) of the electro-magnetic actuators (paragraphs 0020-002 3 ). MALINOWSKI also teaches of a sensor (current detection unit as instantly claimed) which measures the current in the circuits (paragraph 0028, 0048-0049, abstract). The system further comprises a control device (arithmetic unit as instantly claimed) to control the movement of the carriers on top of the transport plane by driving the actuators such that the carriers move along corresponding transport paths simultaneously and independently from one another and a sensor ( it “controls the driving unit,” as instantly claimed “when current flows through winding, the magnetic circuit generates force acting on the sample container to move the sample container along the conveyance path” ) to measure supply currents and/or supply voltages (abstract). Further--- the control device controls the driving circuit. The driving circuit can further comprise a sensor 200 configured to measure currents Id supplied from the voltage source 230 to the H-bridge circuits 220 in a time multiplexed manner. For each coil 120 , a corresponding current Id can be measured when the corresponding H-bridge circuit 220 actively drives the coil 120 (paragraph 0047-0048). MALINOWSKI teaches that the arithmetic unit calculates a decrease in the current from the set current value caused by an increase in the conductor resistance of the winding when the current flows through the winding. The actuators (driving unit as instantly claimed) are supplied with electrical energy based on the supply currents and/or the supply voltages (which are both at set values which are predetermined for predetermined movements through broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms) . The system comprises a monitoring device coupled to the sensor. The monitoring device monitors the actuators temperature based on the measured supply currents and/or supply voltages (abstract). MALINKOSWKI even further teaches of that the control unit is capable of detect ing or “calculate,” ing as claimed a decreased in the current value as any detection would detect either increase or decrease or maintenance ( abstract, paragraph 0019-0022 ). It is noted that for the claimed, “arithmetic unit,” which appears to be a computer or a controller of some sort--- it is not claimed that it is “programmed to,” or “configured to,” perform or control the claimed operations and therefore the calculations and controlling steps as claimed are read only as possible capabilities of the claimed device and are not required . However , for compact prosecution, MALINOWSKI does is not specify that the arithmetic unit changes the current value according to a/ the calculated decrease (which is a form of feedback control) . F eedback control and drive for a linear motor is a known feature , however since MALINOWSKI does not explicitly teach of this, NAGASAWA is used to remedy this. NAGASAWA teaches of a linear moto r 30 comprising a current feedback control unit 13 that outputs a new current command indicating a current value corresponding to the deviation (which reads on decrease or increase) between a current command value from a control device 20 and the output value from the current sensor 15 ( Page 2, from bottom, paragraphs 3 & 4 & Page 3, paragraph 4 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide feedback control based on a deviation of increase or decrease as is done in in the device and method of NAGASAWA in the device of MALINOWSKI due to the advantage this current feedback and control gives the circuit and motor for high efficiency and low hear generation ( Page 2, from bottom paragraph 3 ). It is further noted, that Claim 1 contains a large amount of functional language. As the prior art teaches of all the instantly claimed structures and since particularly the arithmetic unit is not claimed as programmed to or configured to perform the claimed functions, if it is even a computer, processor, or controller the prior art is considered to be capable of the claimed functions. With respect to Claim 11, MALINOWSKI teaches of the laboratory sample distribution system is shown above for Claim 1. MALINOWSKI further teaches that this can be used with/for sample analysis (paragraph 0035). It is noted that, since Claim 11 contains the same limitations as Claim 1, it has not been restricted instantly. However— it that changes, upon amendment, restriction is possible. With respect to Claim 12, MALINOWSKI teaches of the laboratory sample distribution system is shown above for Claim 1. MALINKOWSKI teaches of using a device/system to pre-processing/pre-treatment (paragraph 0034). It is noted that, since Claim 1 2 contains the same limitations as Claim 1, it has not been restricted instantly. However— it that changes, upon amendment, restriction is possible. Claims 2- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MALINOWSKI in US 20180217174 in view of NAGASAWA in JP 2010110146 and further in view of FRONE in US 20190237190 . With respect to Claim 2 , MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit and monitoring/calculating a change or decrease as shown above. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour (paragraph 0082). This includes current data (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Claim 3 , MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour (paragraph 0082). Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Claim 4, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time or associated magnetic force. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour (paragraph 0082). Further t his includes current and temperature and associated magnetic field strength data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data for magnetic field strength or measurements as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Claim 5, MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit and monitoring/calculating a change or decrease as shown above. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour (paragraph 0082). This includes current and temperature data of monitoring for increases and decreases or deviations of these parameters with respect to a threshold to determine if maintenance on the board or coils is needed (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Claim 6, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour to monitor changes/fluctuations (paragraph 0082). Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Claim 7, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour and monitoring fo changes/fluctuations during this time ( paragraph 0082). Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Claim 8, MALINOWSKI teaches that the force is from current being supplied to coils (windings as instantly claimed) of the electro-magnetic actuators (paragraphs 0020-0023) and that the coils/windings surround a core/pole (paragraph 0032, 0039, & 120 on Figure 1). MALINOWSKI further teaches of the driving unit/actuator and arithmetic unit function as claimed--- as shown for claim 1. And FRONE teaches of the storage unit as claimed (see Claim 3 rejections). With respect to Claim 9, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time. FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time dat a from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour over time (paragraph 0082). So this includes, an initial calculation and other measurements/estimates over time. Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082). With respect to Cla im 10, MALINOWSKI teaches that the force in the magnetic circuit is from current being supplied to coils (windings as instantly claimed) of the electro-magnetic actuators (paragraphs 0020-0023) and that the coils/windings surround a core/pole (paragraph 0032, 0039, & 120 on Figure 1). MALINOWSKI further teaches of the driving unit/actuator and arithmetic unit function as claimed--- as shown for claim 1. And FRONE teaches of the storage unit as claimed and also of the function being based on threshold/test currents as instantly claimed (see Claim 3 rejections). It is further noted, for Claims 2-10 that they contain a large amount of functional language. As the prior art teaches of all the instantly claimed structures and since particularly the arithmetic unit and storage units are not claimed as programmed to or configured to perform the claimed functions, if they are even a computer, processor, or controller the prior art is considered to be capable of the claimed functions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4344 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday . 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, Maris Kessel, can be reached on 571- 270-7698 . 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. /REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758