DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 30 September 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-6 were previously pending; claim 7 was added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-7 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 September 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 6 of the Remarks) alleges that the objection to claim 1 has been overcome by the amendment thereto. However, the new language of claim 1 is unclear for the same reasons as the original language and no explanation has been provided as to any improvement in clarity. Further, the language discussed during the interview, which refers to the same features of the present invention as the unclear language supposedly does, is now recited in new claim 7. Thus, it is additionally unclear whether or not claim 7 further limits the subject matter of claim 1.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 7-8 of the Remarks) alleges that the amended limitations of claim 1, supposedly reciting the permanent magnet magnetization directions shown in figure 4 of the application, are not disclosed by Hiura or Sugita. This has been acknowledged previously, as the Takahashi reference is cited, in the grounds of rejection of claim 2, for teaching magnets whose magnetization direction is in the radial direction away from the ends of the magnets. Thus, in response to applicant's arguments 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).
The Applicant’s third argument (page 8 of the Remarks) alleges that Hiura does not disclose that “for each pole of a plurality of poles of the at least one stator and mover, there is provided at least one of the plurality of permanent magnets along a continuous range in the axial direction”, because each pole is comprised of more than one permanent magnet. However, since each individual magnet, element 11, comprises a pole, it is unclear what reasoning is being applied to suggest the conclusion reached in the argument. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (pages 8-9 of the Remarks) alleges that the remaining references, including Takahashi, “provide no additional teachings of relevance”. However, since Takahashi discloses magnets whose magnetization direction is in the radial direction away from the ends of the magnets, which is the exact magnetization arrangement allegedly recited in claim 1, the Takahashi reference does appear to be relevant. Thus, this argument does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because it does not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The Applicant’s fifth argument (page 9 of the Remarks) alleges that new claim 7 recites limitations suggested during the interview, and that these limitations should thus be allowed. However, while similar to language suggested to clarify the limitations of claim 1, the limitations of claim 7 were not agreed to be allowable. Further, since these limitations appear to recite the same magnetization structure recited in claim 1, it is unclear whether claim 7 further limits the subject matter of claim 1, upon which it depends.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the permanent magnets being magnetized “from portions of opposed axial ends of the continuous range that are located away from a radial end of the permanent magnet to an axial center of the continuous range at the radial end of the permanent magnet” or “from the axial center of the continuous range at the radial end of the permanent magnet to the portions of the axial ends of the continuous range that are located away from the radial end”. While it appears that this language refers to the magnetization pattern shown in figure 4, the poor grammar and lack of punctuation makes it difficult to understand. It is suggested that this be more clearly written as requiring the magnets to be magnetized in the axial direction at their axial ends, smoothly transitioning to being magnetized in the radial direction at their axial centers.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiura et al. (US 2011/0193425 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Hiura”, in view of Takahashi (JP 2019-122234 A), hereinafter referred to as “Takahashi”.
Regarding claim 1, Hiura discloses a linear motor [1a] (fig. 10-12) comprising:
a stator [3] extending in an axial direction [c] (fig. 10; ¶ 0055, 0088-0089; either the coil or the shaft portion can be stationary while the other moves); and
a mover [2] extending in the axial direction [c] and radially facing the stator [3] (fig. 10-12; ¶ 0055-0056, 0088-0089), the mover [2] having a pole interval in the axial direction [c] different from that of the stator [3] (fig. 2B, 12; the coils clearly occupy a shorter interval/pitch than the permanent magnets), wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one of the stator [3] and the mover [2] has (i) a plurality of permanent magnets [11], which are arranged in alignment with each other in the axial direction [c], and (ii) a plurality of yoke parts [16] arranged in alignment with each other in the axial direction [c] (fig. 10, 12; ¶ 0056-0058);
each permanent magnet [11] of the plurality of permanent magnets [11] is a polar anisotropic magnet [11] (fig. 10, 12; ¶ 0057; the “plurality of permanent magnets 11 is arranged along the central axis C such that opposite magnetization directions face to each other”); and
for each pole of a plurality of poles of the at least one stator [3] and mover [2], there is provided at least one of the plurality of permanent magnets [11] along a continuous range in the axial direction [c] (fig. 10, 12; each magnet is a single continuous piece).
Hiura does not disclose that the at least one permanent magnet [11] is magnetized either (1) from portions of opposed axial ends of the continuous range that are located away from a radial end of the permanent magnet to an axial center of the continuous range at the radial end of the permanent magnet, or (2) from the axial center of the continuous range at the radial end of the permanent magnet [11] to the portions of the axial ends of the continuous range that are located away from the radial end.
Takahashi discloses a motor comprising a mover [40] comprising permanent magnets [42], wherein the at least one permanent magnet [42] is magnetized either (1) from portions of opposed {ends in the movement direction} of the continuous range that are located away from a radial end of the permanent magnet [42] to {a center in the movement direction} of the continuous range at the radial end of the permanent magnet [42], or (2) from {the center in the movement direction} of the continuous range at the radial end of the permanent magnet [42] to the portions of {ends in the movement direction} of the continuous range that are located away from the radial end (fig. 9; ¶ 0032, 0138; i.e. the ends of the magnets in the movement direction are magnetized in line with the movement direction and the centers of the magnets in the movement direction are magnetized to face the stator).
PNG
media_image2.png
254
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to magnetize the permanent magnets of Hiura axially at their ends in the movement direction and radially at their center in the movement direction as taught by Takahashi, in order to concentrate the magnetic flux toward the center of each magnetic pole thereby increasing the torque of the machine (¶ 0142 of Takahashi).
Regarding claim 2, Hiura, in view of Takahashi, discloses the linear motor as set forth in Claim 1, as stated above, wherein Takahashi further discloses that for each pole [N,S] of the plurality of poles [N,S], there is provided only one of the plurality of permanent magnets [42] in the continuous range in the movement direction (fig. 9; ¶ 0032, 0138; the ends of the magnets in the movement direction are magnetized in line with the movement direction and the centers of the magnets in the movement direction are magnetized to face the stator; as applied to Hiura, the movement direction would be the axial direction).
Regarding claim 6, Hiura, in view of Takahashi, discloses the linear motor as set forth in Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the mover [2] has a shaft part [37] extending along the first axis [c] (fig. 12; ¶ 0089); and the shaft part [37] and the yoke parts [16] are formed as separate parts from each other (fig. 12; ¶ 0089).
Regarding claim 7, Hiura, in view of Takahashi, discloses the linear motor as set forth in Claim 1, as stated above, wherein Takahashi further discloses that the at least one permanent magnet [42] is magnetized in the axial direction at the portions of the opposed axial ends of the continuous range and is magnetized in a radial direction at the {center in the movement direction} of the continuous range (fig. 9; ¶ 0032, 0138; i.e. the ends of the magnets in the movement direction are magnetized in line with the movement direction and the centers of the magnets in the movement direction are magnetized to face the stator; as applied to Hiura, the movement direction would be the axial direction).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiura and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (JP 2005-328655 A), hereinafter referred to as “Nakagawa”.
Regarding claim 3, Hiura, in view of Takahashi, discloses the linear motor as set forth in Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the permanent magnets [11], which are the polar anisotropic magnets [11], are provided in the mover [2] (fig. 10-12).
Hiura does not disclose that the permanent magnets are provided in the stator.
Nakagawa discloses a linear motor comprising a stator [2] and a mover [4], wherein permanent magnets [5] are provided in the stator [2] (fig. 7; ¶ 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the stator of Hiura having permanent magnets as taught by Nakagawa, resulting in permanent magnets being provided on both the stator and the mover, in order to provide a biasing force for applications where the mover is desired to be held stationary when the stator is not energized (¶ 0024 of Nakagawa).
PNG
media_image3.png
552
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiura and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2015/0054372 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Chung”.
Regarding claim 4, Hiura, in view of Takahashi, discloses the linear motor as set forth in Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the mover [2] has a shaft part [37] extending along the first axis [c] (fig. 12; ¶ 0089).
Hiura does not disclose that the shaft part [37] and the yoke parts [16] are integrally formed into a single-piece part (fig. 12; ¶ 0089; Hiura discloses separable, rather than integral shaft and yoke parts).
Chung discloses a linear motor comprising a mover having a shaft part [s] with alternating permanent magnets [pm] and yoke parts [y] mounted thereon, wherein the shaft part [s] and the yoke parts [y] are integrally formed into a single-piece part [core] (fig. 10; ¶ 0064).
PNG
media_image4.png
142
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the yoke parts of Hiura integrally with the shaft part as taught by Chung, in order to reduce the number of components and the number of assembly steps required thereby reducing the cost of the linear motor.
Further, it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure as disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiura, Takahashi, and Chung as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Torii et al. (JP 2013-172585 A), hereinafter referred to as “Torii”.
Regarding claim 5, Hiura, in view of Takahashi and Chung, discloses the linear motor as set forth in Claim 4, as stated above, wherein the permanent magnets [11] are the polar anisotropic magnets [11] arranged between the yoke parts [16] (fig. 10, 12; ¶ 0057; the “plurality of permanent magnets 11 is arranged along the central axis C such that opposite magnetization directions face to each other”).
Hiura does not disclose that the permanent magnets [11] are formed as bonded magnets.
Torii discloses a linear motor [10] comprising permanent magnets [2a], wherein the permanent magnets [2a] are formed as bonded magnets (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0020).
PNG
media_image5.png
337
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that both sintered and bonded neodymium magnets are well known for their high magnetic strength and resistance to demagnetization, desirable in linear motors.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bonded magnet of Torri for the permanent magnet of Hiura, for the purpose of increasing thrust force and resistance to demagnetization. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Fujihara et al. (US 2018/0114620 A1) discloses a linear motor whose permanent magnets have curved magnetization profiles.
Hiura et al. (US 2014/0042833 A1) discloses a linear motor with stator coils surrounding a permanent magnet mover mounted on a shaft, the permanent magnets arranged in a Halbach array along the shaft direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834