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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 8/4/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1-3, 6, 9, cancelled claims 5, 8 and added new claims 10-12.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/350,851 filed on 7/12/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the shaft part a number” in line 3. It is suggested that said above section
is changed to “the shaft part and a number”, for better clarity.
Claims 3, 10-11 depend on claim 2 and are objected for the above reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0184554, hereinafter, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a driving unit 200 configured to be attached to a main body unit 110 including a magnet 161 fixed to a shaft part 141 (Fig. 1, 2, [0038], [0043], the driving unit comprising:
a core assembly including a core body 210 including a plurality of magnetic poles 211a, 212a, facing an outer circumference of the magnet to sandwich the magnet, a coil body 220 wound around the core body 210, 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 reciprocating rotation of the shaft part (Fig. 2, 3, [0045], [0056]-[0057]):
a bottom cover 250 including an opening portion into which the shaft part including the magnet fixed thereto is insertable, and an annular positioning protruding portion provided coaxially with the opening portion and configured to engage with an annular recessed portion of the main body unit from an axial direction; (Fig. 2, 10, the bottom cover 250 includers an opening portion which has an annular protrusion towards the side of the main body 110, which side has a respective annular recessed portion to engage with the protrusion of the bottom cover).
Takahashi does not disclose a top cover configured to sandwich the core assembly between the top cover and the bottom cover, and a first fastening member configured to integrally fasten the top cover and the bottom cover, with the core assembly sandwiched therebetween, in a direction parallel to the axial direction.
In Takahashi, the driving unit 200 comprises a bottom cover 250 to connect to the main body 110 but lacks a top cover to sandwich the core assembly between the top and bottom covers (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Takahashi so that the driving unit also comprises a top cover, with the core assembly being sandwiched between the two covers, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts (here, top and bottom covers) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). A positioning of the core assembly between two outside covers provides better protection of the sensitive core assembly against deleterious effects from the environment.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Takahashi so that a first fastening member integrally fastens the top cover and the bottom cover, with the core assembly sandwiched therebetween, in a direction parallel to the axial direction, for better attachment of the core assembly with the two covers. In fact, Takahashi discloses said way of attaching the base cover to the main body via fastening members 251 (Fig. 2, [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi discloses a rotary reciprocating drive actuator comprising the driving unit 200 according to claim 1;
a main body unit 110 to which the driving unit is attached, the main body unit including:
a movable body 120 including the shaft part to which a movable object is connected at one end portion side (right) of the shaft part and to which the magnet is fixed at an other end (left) portion side of the shaft part, and
a base portion 110 including a pair of wall portions 11a, 11b disposed to sandwich the movable object, the base portion supporting the shaft part by the pair of wall portions such that the shaft part is rotatable, in a state in which the other end portion side of the shaft part protrudes from one wall portion of the pair of wall portions (Fig. 2, [0040]-[0041]); and
the magnet is disposed in the core assembly (Fig. 4).
Takahashi does not disclose a second fastening member inserted through a second insertion hole formed in the bottom cover separately from a first insertion hole through which the first fastening member is inserted, the second fastening member fastening the bottom cover to the one wall portion along the same direction as a fastening direction of the first fastening member, wherein:
the driving unit is attached to the main body unit by fixing the bottom cover to the one wall portion with the second fastening member different from the first fastening member, in a state in which the annular positioning protruding portion engages with the annular recessed portion from the axial direction.
In the above modified Takahashi, fastening members are used to engage the bottom and the top covers of the driving unit and also engage the bottom cover with the main body (Fig. 2, 7, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Takahashi so that the two attachments (i.e., top cover/core assembly/bottom cover and bottom cover/main body) are performed via different sets of fastening members (and respective insertion holes), for achieving simpler operation (as fastening channels are separated).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0265904, hereinafter, “Takahashi1”).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses the driving unit according to claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose wherein the bottom cover includes a core holding projection that is disposed to protrude toward the core assembly side and holds the core body within the core assembly.
Takahashi1 discloses a rotary drive actuator 1A where the core assembly 40 is held by a fixation plate 27a (which is affixed to the wall 22A of the main body) which has a core holding projection (not labelled) protruding toward the core assembly (Fig. 11, [0130]).
Both Takahashi and Takahashi1 disclose driving units for a movable/rotating body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Takahashi so that the bottom cover 250 has a core holding projection, as taught by Takahashi1, for securing the core assembly.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as evidenced by Shimizu (US 2025/0226005, hereinafter, “Shimuzu”).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses the rotary reciprocating drive actuator according to claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose wherein each of the bottom cover and the top cover is an electromagnetic shield having electrical conductivity.
In Takahashi, the bottom cover 250 is a fixing plate that fixes the (magnetic) core body 210 and the (magnetic) coil body 220 to the base portion 110 (Fig. 2 in Takahashi). The fixing plate 250 is a non-magnetic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Takahashi so that both bottom cover and top cover are of a non-magnetic material, for example, an aluminum alloy (having electrical conductivity according to the specification, [0102]), since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, e.g., aluminum alloy (Shimizu discloses that examples of the material of the non-magnetic substrate include an aluminum alloy, glass, and polycarbonate ([0067])) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 2-3, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2021096295A, hereinafter, “Takahashi2”, corresponding to US 2023/0026476).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses the driving unit according to claim 1, wherein a number of poles of the plurality of magnetic poles is two (Fig. 3, [0056] in Takahashi).
Takahashi does not disclose the top cover includes a sensor housing that houses an angle sensor part configured to detect a rotational angle of the shaft part. In Takahashi, the sensor 132 is located on the side of the movable mirror 120 away from the driving unit 200 (Fig. 2).
Takahashi2 discloses a rotary drive actuator 100 where a sensor housing 130, including an angle sensor 132, is placed close to the rotating mirror 120 to detect a rotational angle of the shaft 141, wherein the sensor is placed on the left side of the rotating mirror 120 next to the core assembly 200 (Fig. 2, [0042]).
Both Takahashi and Takahashi2 disclose driving units for a movable/rotating body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Takahashi so that the sensor 132 is placed on the left side of the rotating mirror next to the core assembly, for example, in the top cover, as taught by Takahashi2, since this arrangement represents a rearrangement of the parts of the actuator of Takahashi i.e., the relative position of the sensor, the top, bottom parts of the driving unit, and the movable mirror, and it has been held that rearrangement of parts is not novel (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), MPEP2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi/Takahashi2 discloses the driving unit according to claim 2, wherein
the angle sensor part includes an encoder disk fixed to the shaft part, and an optical sensor configured to optically detect a rotational position of the encoder disk (Fig. 2, [0042] in Takahashi2).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi/Takahashi2 discloses the driving unit according to claim 3, wherein
a sensor board 131 on which the optical sensor 132 is mounted is fixed to the top cover so as to close the sensor housing (Fig. 2, [0042] in Takahashi2).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi/Takahashi2 discloses the driving unit according to claim 10, wherein
the coil body includes a terminal protruding toward the sensor board; and the sensor board includes a power supply circuit configured to supply electric power to the coil body and is directly connected to the terminal of the coil body ([0083] in Takahashi, in Takahashi/Takahashi2, the power supply unit supplying power to the coil body is on the circuit board 131).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant stated that “First, Takahashi does not disclose top and bottom covers that sandwich the core assembly. Second, Takahashi does not disclose a first fastening member that integrally fastens those covers with the core assembly sandwiched therebetween. Takahashil likewise separately fixes circuit board 131 and core unit 200 to wall portion 111a, rather than providing a top cover and a bottom cover that sandwiches the core assembly and are integrally fastened to form the claimed driving unit (see Takahashil, at paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and FIGS. 2-5).”, see p. 11 of the Remarks.
First, it is noted that Takahashi1 in the previous Office Action corresponds to Takahashi2 in the present Office Action, and Takahashi2 in the previous Office Action corresponds to Takahashi1 in the present Office Action.
Applicant's above arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that new amended claim 1 has been rejected based only on Takahashi and the reasons are given above.
Applicant stated “Takahashi merely states that fixing plate 250 is fixed to wall portion 111a through fastening members 251 (see Takahashi, paragraph [0046] and FIG. 2). Takahashi does not identify fastening members 251 as an annular positioning protruding portion provided coaxially with the opening and does not identify the respective fastening holes as the claimed annular recessed portion”, see p. 12 of the Remarks.
As discussed above, the bottom cover 250 includers an opening portion which has an annular protrusion towards the side of the main body 110, which side has a respective annular recessed portion to engage with the protrusion of the bottom cover (Fig. 2, 10 in Takahashi).
Applicant also stated “The Office's proposed relocation or rearrangement of the sensor does not remedy the deficiencies of Takahashi and Takahashil. Moving a sensor relative to a core assembly as alleged by the Office Action does not provide the claimed top and bottom covers, the first fastening member that integrally fastens those covers with the core assembly sandwiched therebetween, or the coaxial annular positioning interface for attaching the preassembled driving unit to the main body unit. Similarly, merely making formerly separate components "one piece" as alleged by the Office Action does not provide the express spatial, positioning, and fastening relationships recited in amended Claim 1. Accordingly, the proposed combination of Takahashi and Takahashil does not teach or suggest all of the features of amended Claim 1”, see pages 13, 14 of the Remarks.
It is noted that new amended claim 1 has been rejected based only on Takahashi and the reasons are given above.
Regarding claims 2, 3 Applicant stated “Neither Takahashi nor Takahashil teaches or suggests the claimed sensor housing provided in the top cover that sandwiches the core assembly with the bottom cover… Although Takahashi discloses an encoder disk and an optical sensor, Takahashi does not disclose those components in the sensor housing of the claimed top cover”, see p. 14 of the Remarks.
It is noted that Takahashi2 discloses a housing for the sensor, the sensor housing being positioned in the top cover, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant stated “Neither paragraph [0130] nor FIG. 11 of Takahashi2 identifies or describes claimed protruding arrangement and holding function. Accordingly, Takahashi2 does not teach or suggest the additional feature of Claim 6”, see p. 15 of the Remarks.
It is noted that Fig. 11 in Takahashi1 shows a projection from 27A protruding towards the core assembly that holds said core assembly.
Finally, regarding claim 9, Applicant stated “Although Shimizu identifies these materials as suitable for a magnetic-disk substrate, Shimizu does not teach or suggest using them for the top and bottom covers of the cited actuator to provide the claimed electromagnetic-shielding function”, see p. 15 of the Remarks.
In response to Applicant's above argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that it was Takahashi who was cited for top and bottom non-magnetic covers.
The rejection of independent claim 1 (similarly for independent claim 12) and its dependents is maintained. New dependent claims10-11 have also been rejected.
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 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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights