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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “VIBRATION MOTOR WITH WEIGHT HAVING CONDUCTIVE PLATE AND FIRST AND SECOND MAGNETS ON BOTH SIDES OF PLATE”
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1,2,3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US PG Pub 2020041228 hereinafter “Mao”) in view of Chun (US PG Pub 20170120297 hereinafter “Chun”).
Re-claim 1, Mao discloses a vibration motor (Title,100), comprising a housing (1) having a receiving space (inside 1), and a vibration assembly (3) and a stator assembly (2) that are received in the receiving space (inside 10); wherein the vibration assembly (3) comprises a weight (31) arranged apart from the housing (1), a magnet assembly (33) fixed to the weight (31), and an elastic member (4) supporting the weight in the receiving space (inside 10), the weight (31) is provided with a receiving hole (inside 31, see fig.7) running therethrough, the weight comprises an inner wall (313,311, inside walls) enclosing to form the receiving hole (inside 31), the magnet assembly (33) is received in the receiving hole and fixed to the inner wall (fixed to inside of 311, 313); the stator assembly (2) comprises a coil assembly (22,21) fixed to the housing (fixed to 100), partially received in the receiving hole (inside of 31), and arranged opposite to the magnet assembly (see annotated fig.1),
wherein the magnet assembly (33) comprises a first magnet assembly (3311) fixed to the inner wall (wall of 311) along a first direction (annotated fig.7) perpendicular (forming 90 degree see fig.7) to a vibrating direction (annotated fig.7), the first magnet assembly comprises a first magnetically conductive plate (3311) fixed to the inner wall (wall of 311) and a first magnet (3333) fixed to a side of the first magnetically conductive plate away (annotated fig.7, other side of 3311, away from 311) from the inner wall (inner wall of 3311).
Mao fails to explicitly teach the magnet assembly further comprises a second magnet sandwiched between the inner wall and the first magnetically conductive plate.
However, Chun shows the magnet assembly further comprises a second magnet (332,334) sandwiched between the inner wall (annotated fig.4, inner wall of 342) and the first magnetically conductive plate (plate 321, or 322).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnet assembly of Mao wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a second magnet sandwiched between the inner wall and the first magnetically conductive plate as shown by Chun to improve magnetic structure with response speed of the actuator, with better vibrating body with added magnetic property with magnetic force lines, improve quality and performance of actuation (Chun, P[0024-0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
539
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Mao as modified discloses the vibration motor as described in claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a second magnet assembly (annotated fig.7) fixed to the inner wall (fixed to 311, at 3312) along the vibrating direction (annotated fig.7), and the second magnet assembly comprises a second magnetically conductive plate (3312) fixed to the inner wall (inner wall of 311, opposite walls), and a third magnet (3353) fixed to a side of the second magnetically conductive plate (to 3312) away from the inner wall (away from wall of 311).
Re-claim 3, Mao as modified discloses the vibration motor as described in claim 2, wherein the second magnet assembly further comprises a fourth magnet sandwiched between the second magnetically conductive plate and the inner wall.
Mao fails to explicitly teach the second magnet assembly further comprises a fourth magnet sandwiched between the second magnetically conductive plate and the inner wall.
However, Chun shows the second magnet assembly further comprises a fourth magnet (334) sandwiched between the second magnetically conductive plate (plate 321, or 322) and the inner wall (annotated fig.4, inner wall of 341).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnet assembly of Mao wherein the second magnet assembly further comprises a fourth magnet sandwiched between the second magnetically conductive plate and the inner wall as shown by Chun to improve magnetic structure with response speed of the actuator, with better vibrating body with added magnetic property with magnetic force lines, improve quality and performance of actuation (Chun, P[0024-0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5,6,8 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:
Re-claim 4, recites with claim 1, inter alia “4. The vibration motor as described in claim 1, wherein the second magnet, the first magnetically conductive plate, and the first magnet are sequentially stacked on the inner wall along the first direction, and projections of the second magnet, the first magnetically conductive plate, and the first magnet along the first direction completely overlap. “
The combination of structure sequentially of claims 1 and 4 is found to be unique, none of the prior art of record, ip.com search or ai search teach alone or combined the combination of limitation of claims 4 and 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
487
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 5, recites with claim 1, inter alia “5. The vibration motor as described in claim 1, wherein the first magnet is a three-segment magnetization structure, the first magnet has a first magnetization region, a second magnetization region, and a third magnetization region sequentially arranged along the vibrating direction; and the first magnetization region and the third magnetization region have a same magnetization direction, and are both magnetized along a direction perpendicular to the vibrating direction. “
The combination of structure sequentially and segment structure of claims 1 and 5 is found to be unique, none of the prior art of record, ip.com search or ai search teach alone or combined the combination of limitation of claims 5 and 1.
Re-claim 6, recites with claim 1, inter alia “6. The vibration motor as described in claim 1, wherein the first magnet is a three-segment magnetization structure, the first magnet has a first magnetization region, a second magnetization region, and a third magnetization region sequentially arranged along the vibrating direction; and the first magnetization region and the third magnetization region have opposite magnetization directions and are both magnetized along the vibrating direction. “
The combination of structure sequentially and segment structure of claims 1 and 6 is found to be unique, none of the prior art of record, ip.com search or ai search teach alone or combined the combination of limitation of claims 6 and 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
886
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 8, recites with claim 1,2,3, inter alia “8. The vibration motor as described in claim 3, wherein projections of the third magnet, the second magnetically conductive plate, and the fourth magnet along the vibrating direction completely overlap.”
The combination of structure sequentially and segment structure of claims 1,3,8 is found to be unique, none of the prior art of record, ip.com search or ai search teach alone or combined the combination of limitation of claims 8,3 and 1.
Claims 7,9, and 10 are objected to based on dependency from rejected claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834