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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0184554) in view of Kondo (JPH11-206093).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. (figures 2-3) discloses a rotary reciprocating drive actuator, comprising:
a movable body including a shaft part (141) to which a magnet (161) is fixed at an outer circumference of the shaft part, the movable body being capable of performing a reciprocating rotation about an axis (see at least paragraphs 0039 and 0043);
a base portion (110) including a pair of wall portions (110a-110b) for supporting the shaft part via a bearing such that the shaft part is rotatable (see at least paragraphs 0040-0041);
a core assembly (200) including:
a core body (210) having a plurality of magnetic poles (211a, 212a) facing an outer circumference of the magnet to sandwich the magnet (figures 2-3; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0056),
a coil body (200) that is wound around the core body and that is energized to generate a magnetic flux interacting with the magnet to cause a reciprocating rotation of the movable body (see at least paragraphs 0047 and 0055-0056), and
a magnet position holding portion (240) that generates a magnetic attraction force between the magnet position holding portion and the magnet to define a reference position of the reciprocating rotation (see at least paragraph 0047).
Takahashi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Takahashi et al. is silent regarding a preload applying part that is externally fitted to the shaft part and arranged between the magnet and the bearing, and configured to press the magnet and the bearing along the shaft part to apply a preload to the bearing. Kondo (figure 2) teaches a preload applying part (wave washer 19; see at least paragraph 0018) that is externally fitted to the shaft part (12) and arranged between the magnet (43-45) and the bearing (15), and configured to press the magnet and the bearing along the shaft part to apply a preload to the bearing (throttle body 11 of the throttle device 10 rotatably supports a throttle shaft 12 via bearings 15 and 16; see at least paragraphs 0009 and 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the preload applying part as taught by Kondo in order to provide a rotary reciprocating drive actuator that has high rotational accuracy and can perform highly reliable driving with little sliding by improving the rigidity of the shaft.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi et al. (figured 2-3) discloses wherein: one end portion side of the shaft part is connected to a movable object (120; see at least paragraph 0042) between the pair of wall portions, and an other end portion side of the shaft part is inserted through the bearing of one wall portion of the pair of wall portions and is fixed to the magnet at an outside of the one wall portion (figure 2), and the bearing of the one wall portion is a ball bearing, and Takahashi et al. as modified by Kondo teaches the preload applying part is disposed between the bearing of the one wall portion and the magnet.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi et al. (figured 2-3) discloses wherein: one end portion side of the shaft part is connected to a movable object (120; see at least paragraph 0042) between the pair of wall portions, and an other end portion side of the shaft part is inserted through the bearing of one wall portion of the pair of wall portions and is fixed to the magnet at an outside of the one wall portion (figure 2), and the bearing of the one wall portion is a ball bearing, and Takahashi et al. as modified by Kondo teaches the preload applying part is disposed between the bearing of the one wall portion and the movable object.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi et al. (figured 2-3) discloses wherein: the bearing is a ball bearing including a flange engaged with each of the pair of wall portions in an axial direction (see at least paragraph 0050), and the preload applying part is disposed to bias the bearing of one wall portion of the pair of wall portions from the flange side of the bearing in an engagement direction in which the bearing is engaged with the one wall portion.
The limitations “the preload applying part is disposed to bias the bearing of one wall portion of the pair of wall portions from the flange side of the bearing in an engagement direction in which the bearing is engaged with the one wall portion” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Benner et al. (figure 12) teaches wherein: an annular retaining portion (11) is fixed to the shaft part at a portion between the preload applying part and the magnet, adjacent to the magnet; and the preload applying part is sandwiched between the annular retaining portion and the bearing, and presses the magnet and the bearing (figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Benner et al. (figure 12) teaches wherein the preload applying part is a cylindrical coil spring or a wave spring (19).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi et al. (figured 2-3) discloses wherein a number of poles of the plurality of magnetic poles is two.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi et al. (figured 2-3) discloses wherein the movable object is a mirror for reflecting scanning light.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871