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 22 December 2025. In view of this communication, claims 1-12 are now pending in the application, with claims 6-9 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 8-10 of the Remarks) alleges that the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are invalid because the Toyota reference discloses a rotating device while claim 1 has been amended to recite the “shaft being movable in the axial direction… without rotating”. In response to Applicant's 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).
Toyota is cited in the grounds of rejection for teaching a magnet arrangement, while Ausderau is cited for teaching the constant force generator with a non-rotating shaft (fig. 5a-5f; ¶ 0043; the movable part is “fixed against rotation”). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive because the primary reference, Ausderau, does disclose the relevant limitation, and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 10 of the Remarks) alleges that there is no motive to combine the teachings of Ausderau and Toyota. No explanation or evidence is provided in support of this broad allegation. As stated in the grounds of rejection, implementing the magnet array of Ausderau having main magnets sandwiched by two circumferentially magnetized secondary magnets as taught by Toyota would provide a more sinusoidal wave distribution of the magnetic field thereby improving its thrust force and reducing its thrust ripple (¶ 0009 of Toyota), thereby showing sufficient motivation for the combination. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 11 of the Remarks) alleges that the remaining claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. This is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausderau (US 2004/0004405 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Ausderau”, in view of Toyota et al. (US 2011/0012440 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Toyota”.
Regarding claim 1, Ausderau discloses a constant force generator [1] (fig. 5, 8; ¶ 0042) comprising:
a case [10] extending in an axial direction, the case [10] being made of a tube-shaped ferromagnetic material (fig. 5; ¶ 0042-0043; “iron core”);
a tube-shaped stator [10m] extending in the axial direction, the tube-shaped stator [10m] being disposed in the case [10] (fig. 8, 13-14; ¶ 0048); and
a rod-shaped shaft [11] extending in the axial direction, the rod-shaped shaft [11] being disposed in the tube-shaped stator [10m] via a gap (fig. 5, 8; ¶ 0042), the rod-shaped shaft [11] being movable in the axial direction relative to the tube-shaped stator [11] without rotating (fig. 5a-5f; ¶ 0043-0046; the movable part is “fixed against rotation”), wherein the tube-shaped stator [10m] comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
159
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
N main permanent magnets [10m] disposed adjacently at regular angular intervals of (360/N) degrees, each main permanent magnet [10m] being magnetized in a radial direction, where N represents an integer which is selected from two, four, and eight (fig. 8, 14; ¶ 0048; the embodiment of figure 8 shows 2 arc-shaped permanent magnets spaced apart by 180°, 360°/2; the magnets are magnetized radially as shown by the flux lines, “ϕ”);
wherein the tube-shaped stator [10m] forms a permanent magnet region (fig. 8, 13-14; ¶ 0048); and
wherein the rod-shaped shaft [11] at least includes a shaft portion [11] which is selected from one permanent magnet, a magnetic shaft, and a combination of a rod-shaped ferromagnetic body and a plurality of permanent magnets (fig. 5, 8, 14; ¶ 0042, 0058; embodiments meeting all three of the above limitations are disclosed as alternative configurations of the shaft).
Ausderau does not disclose an even number of secondary permanent magnets disposed so as to sandwich each of the N main permanent magnets on both sides in a circumferential direction, the magnets being of Halbach configuration by one main permanent magnet and a pair of secondary permanent magnets which sandwiches the main permanent magnet so as to restrain magnetic flux generated from the permanent magnet region of Halbach configuration from leaking from the case even if the case has a small thickness.
Toyota discloses a magnet array, comprising N main permanent magnets [111] disposed adjacently at regular angular intervals, each main permanent magnet [111] being magnetized in a radial direction, where N represents an integer which is selected from two, four, and eight (fig. 10; ¶ 0027-0028, 0065-0068; there are eight radially magnetized magnets);
PNG
media_image2.png
453
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an even number of secondary permanent magnets [112] disposed so as to sandwich each of the N main permanent magnets [111] on both sides in a circumferential direction, each secondary permanent magnet [112] being exactly magnetized in the circumferential direction (fig. 1, 10; ¶0027-0028; the main and secondary magnets are described as being magnetized perpendicular to one another, which corresponds to the radial and circumferential directions in the annular embodiment), the even number of secondary permanent magnets [112] being configured to sandwich the both sides of each main permanent magnet [111] so that magnetic poles of the secondary permanent magnets [112], facing the both sides of the sandwiched main permanent magnet [111], have a polarity the same as an inside magnetic pole of the sandwiched main permanent magnet [111] (fig. 10; the arrows of the secondary magnets are rotated ±90° relative to the arrows of the main magnets), and
the magnet array being of Halbach configuration by one main permanent magnet [111] and a pair of secondary permanent magnets [112] which sandwiches the main permanent magnet [111] (fig. 10; ¶ 0065-0068) so as to restrain magnetic flux generated from the permanent magnet region of Halbach configuration from leaking from the case even if the case has a smaller thickness than that of the tube-shaped stator (this contingent limitation, i.e. “so as to… thickness”, is merely a statement of the intended use of the permanent magnet region which implies no additional structure besides the Halbach configuration already recited).
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 stator of Ausderau with each of its radially magnetized main magnets sandwiched by two circumferentially magnetized secondary magnets as taught by Toyota, in order to provide a more sinusoidal wave distribution of the magnetic field thereby improving its thrust force and reducing its thrust ripple (¶ 0009 of Toyota).
Regarding claim 2, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses the constant force generator [1] as claimed in claim 1, as stated above, wherein the tube-shaped stator [10m] is fixed to an inner wall surface of the case [10] (fig. 8, 14; ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses the constant force generator [1] as claimed in claim 1, as stated above,
wherein N is an even number (fig. 8, 14; there are either 2 or 4 main magnets shown in the figures), and
wherein the N main permanent magnets [10m] are disposed adjacently so that the N main permanent magnets [10m] are magnetized in the radial direction so as to have opposite polarities to each other (fig. 8, 14; ¶ 0048; the magnets are magnetized radially as shown by the flux lines, “ϕ”).
Regarding claim 4, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses the constant force generator [1] as claimed in claim 1, as stated above,
wherein N is two (fig. 8, 14; there are either 2 or 4 main magnets shown in the figures),
wherein the tube-shaped stator [10m] comprises two main permanent magnets [10m] (fig. 8, 14; there are either 2 or 4 main magnets shown in the figures) and four secondary permanent magnets (as disclosed by Toyota, there are two secondary magnets per main magnet; so, in combination, there would be either 4 or 8 secondary magnets, sandwiching each of the 2 or 4 main magnets disclosed by Ausderau),
wherein the shaft portion [11] includes one permanent magnet magnetized to have magnetic poles faced to and opposite in polarity from the inside magnetic poles in the two main permanent magnets [10m] (fig. 8, 14; each north/south pole of the main magnets is opposed by a corresponding south/north pole of the shaft).
Regarding claim 10, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses the constant force generator [1] as claimed in claim 1, as stated above,
wherein the case [10] has a hollow cylindrical shape (fig. 5, 8, 14),
wherein the tube-shaped stator [10m] has a hollow cylindrical shape (fig. 8, 14; the magnet arrays of Arnold also disclose hollow cylinders), and
wherein the rod-shaped shaft [11] has a solid cylindrical shape (fig. 5, 8, 14).
Regarding claim 11, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses an apparatus (fig. 19; 0054) comprising:
a driven body [21] extending in a longitudinal direction (fig. 19; ¶ 0052);
a linear motor [2] configured to drive the driven body [21] in the longitudinal direction (fig. 19; ¶ 0053); and
the constant force generator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above,
wherein the constant force generator [1] is mounted to the driven body [21], the axial direction being the longitudinal direction (fig. 19; ¶ 0054; the constant force generator is attached to the armature of the linear drive by “connecting piece 13”).
Regarding claim 12, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a driven body [21] extending in a vertical direction, the driven body [21] having first and second side faces opposite to each other (fig. 19; ¶ 0054; the fixed part of the linear motor can be “individual fixed parts” formed separately from, and sandwiched by, the fixed parts of the constant force generators);
a linear motor [2] mounted to the first side face of the driven body [21], the linear motor [2] being configured to drive the driven body [21] in the vertical direction (fig. 19; ¶ 0053; the system can be used for “vertical operation”); and
the constant force generator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above,
wherein the constant force generator [1] is mounted to the second side face of the driven body [21], the vertical direction being the axial direction (fig. 19; ¶ 0053-0054; the individual fixed parts are attached to opposite sides of the linear motor).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausderau and Toyota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rieckman et al. (US 3,076,153), hereinafter referred to as “Rieckman”.
Regarding claim 5, Ausderau, in view of Toyota, discloses the constant force generator [1] as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rod-shaped shaft [11] comprises:
a magnetic shaft [11] as the shaft portion [11] (fig. 5, 8, 14; ¶ 0042).
Ausderau does not disclose a nonmagnetic shaft being continuous from the magnetic shaft [11], the nonmagnetic shaft extending in the axial direction.
Rieckman discloses a generator comprising a rod-shaped shaft [12-14] (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 10-25; col. 2, lines 16-28), comprising a magnetic shaft [12] as the shaft portion; and a nonmagnetic shaft [13,14] being continuous from the magnetic shaft [12], the nonmagnetic shaft [13,14] extending in the axial direction (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 16-22).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
723
media_image3.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 implement the shaft of Ausderau having non-magnetic portions contiguous with the magnetic portion as taught by Rieckman, in order to provide means for attaching the shaft to other components without the added expense and weight of additional permanent magnets.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Boisclair et al. (US 2018/0219452 A1) discloses a constant force generator having hollow tube-shaped components made up of permanent magnets, wherein the permanent magnets are arranged in Halbach arrays.
Frissen et al. (US 2016/0070181 A1) discloses a linear motor using a stator comprising permanent magnets arranged in a Halbach array, with main permanent magnets polarized toward the mover and sandwiched by second permanent magnets polarized tangent thereto.
Hiura et al. (US 2011/0193425 A1) discloses a linear motor using a mover comprising permanent magnets arranged in a Halbach array.
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