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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 12/3/2025. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-5 are cancelled. Claims 9-12 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The claims are now rejected in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 5,594,805 A) and not Zhao.
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.
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, 6-7, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (US 5,594,805 A, hereinafter Sakamoto) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0211030 A1, hereinafter Li) and Brown (US 2020/0381153 A1).
As to claim 1, Sakamoto shows (FIG. 23, 7) a vibration motor, comprising:
a casing Y,TP having an accommodating space; and
a stator assembly and a vibrator assembly accommodated in the accommodating space;
wherein one of the stator assembly and the vibrator assembly comprises a magnet M, and the other comprises a coil 1 arranged in correspondence with the magnet M; wherein the coil 1 interacts with the magnet M to provide a driving force for the vibrator assembly, and the coil 1 is wound from wires C; wherein the vibration motor further comprises a magnetic conductor F arranged in a magnetic field of the magnet M; the magnetic conductor F is made of magnet-conducting material, (FIG. 7):
PNG
media_image1.png
482
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the coil 1 comprises a plurality of layers CL of wires C stacked in a thickness direction of the coil 1, and the magnetic conductor F is provided between two adjacent layers CL of the wires C.
Sakamoto does not show:
the magnet comprises a magnetic steel; and
the magnetic conductor is fixed by extrusion between two adjacent turns of the wires of the coil or by adhesive bonding.
As to the first bullet, Li shows the magnet comprises a magnetic steel (para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet of Sakamoto to have the magnet comprises a magnetic steel as taught by Li, for the advantageous benefits of high hardness, high coercive force and high temperature and corrosion resistance as taught by Li (para [0037]).
As to the second bullet, Brown shows the adhesive layer on a wire will extrude over the bare wire (para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil 1 of Sakamoto in view of Li to have the magnetic conductor F is fixed by extrusion between two adjacent turns of the wires C of the coil 1 or by adhesive bonding as taught by Brown, for the advantageous benefit of holding each turn of the coil 1 in place as taught by Brown (para [0026]).
As to claim 6/1, Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for a volume of the magnetic conductor accounts for 1% to 95% of a volume of the coil.
Sakamoto suggests (FIG. 7) a volume of the magnetic conductor F accounts for 1% to 95% of a volume of the coil 1 (about half the volume of the coil 1 is the magnetic material F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire 1 of Zhao in view of Li to have a volume of the magnetic conductor F accounts for 1% to 95% of a volume of the coil 1 as suggested by Sakamoto, for the advantageous benefits of a vibration motor with improved efficiency and reduced weight as taught by Sakamoto (col. 9:7-15).
As to claim 7/1, Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Sakamoto further shows the magnet-conducting material comprises at least one of pure iron, mild steel, iron-nickel alloy, iron-cobalt alloy, copper, and aluminum (iron col. 7:25-35).
As to claim 9/1, Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Sakamoto further shows (FIG. 7) each of the wires 1 comprises an electric conductor C and an insulating layer wrapped around an outer side of the electric conductor C, and the magnetic conductor F is separated from the electric conductor C by the insulating layer (insulating film col. 6: 45-51, insulating process col. 8: 8-12; each conductor C is in contact with a magnetic conductor F).
As to claim 12/1, Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Sakamoto further shows the magnetic conductor F is fixed to both the innermost and outermost layers of the coil 1.
Sakamoto does not show the magnetic conductor is fixed by adhesive bonding to the layers of the coil.
Brown shows the adhesive layer on a wire will extrude over the bare wire (para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil 1 of Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown to have the magnetic conductor F is fixed by adhesive bonding to the layers of the coil 1 as taught by Brown, for the advantageous benefit of holding each turn of the coil 1 in place as taught by Brown (para [0026]).
Claim(s) 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (US 5,594,805 A, hereinafter Sakamoto) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0211030 A1, hereinafter Li) and Brown (US 2020/0381153 A1) and Kuze et al. (US 2017/0280248 A1, hereinafter Kuze).
As to claim 8/1, Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Sakamoto further shows (FIG. 23) the vibrator assembly further comprises a core Y supporting the coil 1, and the wires C are wrapped around the core Y to form the coil 1.
Sakamoto does not show the core is iron.
Kuze shows the yoke 61 is iron (para[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core Y of Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown to have the core Y is iron as shown by Kuze, for the advantageous benefit of having the core Y is a magnetic material as taught by Liu (para [0031]).
As to claim 11/8/1, Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown and Kuze was discussed above with respect to claim 8 and Sakamoto further shows (FIG. 7) the magnetic conductor F is provided in the innermost layer of the coil 1.
Sakamoto does not show when the magnetic conductor is fixed by extrusion between two adjacent turns of wires of the coil.
Brown shows the adhesive layer on a wire will extrude over the bare wire (para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil 1 of Sakamoto in view of Li and Brown and Kuze to have when the magnetic conductor F is fixed by extrusion between two adjacent turns of wires C of the coil 1 as taught by Brown, for the advantageous benefit of holding each turn of the coil 1 in place as taught by Brown (para [0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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: The prior art does not show or suggest all the features of claim 10 together in one coil.
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 ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights