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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1. Claim 1 recites “an abutment member that abuts on the common node area on a side opposite to a side on which the abutment body faces the contact body.” From previous limitations it is understood that the contact body is configured to come into contact with the elastic body of the vibrating body, and the abutment member abuts on the common node area on a side of the vibrating body. One of ordinary skill in the art is unable to determine if the abutment member abuts on the common node area, and the common node area is on a side of the abutment body opposite to a side on which the abutment body faces the contact body, or that the contact body and the abutment member are on opposite sides of the common node area of the vibrating body. For examination purposes, which is believed to be consistent with the originally filed specification, the limitation will be interpreted to be that the contact body and the abutment member are on opposite sides of the common node area of the vibrating body.
Claims 2-16 and 18-19 are similarly rejected due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 17. Claim 17 recites “an abutment member that abuts on the common node area on a side opposite to a side on which the abutment body faces the contact body.” From previous limitations it is understood that the contact body is configured to come into contact with the elastic body of the vibrating body, and the abutment member abuts on the common node area on a side of the vibrating body. One of ordinary skill in the art is unable to determine if the abutment member abuts on the common node area, and the common node area is on a side of the abutment body opposite to a side on which the abutment body faces the contact body, or that the contact body and the abutment member are on opposite sides of the common node area of the vibrating body. For examination purposes, which is believed to be consistent with the originally filed specification, the limitation will be interpreted to be that the contact body and the abutment member are on opposite sides of the common node area of the vibrating body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1. The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, “the vibration actuator is configured such that an attraction force between the vibrating body and the abutment body is generated by a magnetic force” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-16 and 18-19 would similarly be allowable due to dependency to claim 1.
US 20200382023 A1 to Shimada for instance, taken alone or in combination with the prior art of record, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 1 in combination with the all other limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Shimada discloses various limitations of base claim 1: a vibration actuator comprising: a vibrating body (Fig. 1 vibrator 2) configured to include an electro-mechanical energy conversion element (Fig. 1 piezoelectric element 4) and an elastic body (Fig. 1 elastic member 3) and have two vibration modes (See Fig. 3A and 3B, para 39) having a common node area that is of both the two vibration modes and is shared between the two vibration modes (See Fig. 6A and 6B, para 43); a contact body configured to come into contact with the elastic body (Fig. 1 slider 9); and an abutment body (Fig. 1 pressing member 6) configured to include an abutment member (Fig. 4 protrusions 61-1 and 61-2) that abuts on the common node area on a side opposite to a side on which the abutment body faces the contact body (See Fig. 4)
However, Shimada does not disclose that “the vibration actuator is configured such that an attraction force between the vibrating body and the abutment body is generated by a magnetic force.” Further, US 20180041141 A1 to Shinzato et al. discloses projections of the elastic body may come press contact with the contact body by making the elastic body and contact body drawn mutually by magnetic force generated by a magnetic circuit formed between the contact body and elastic body (See para 37), but does not disclose that the vibration actuator is configured such that an attraction force between the vibrating body and the abutment body is generated by a magnetic force. Therefore, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17. The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, “the vibration actuator is configured such that an attraction force between the vibrating body and the abutment body is generated by a magnetic force” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 17.
US 20200382023 A1 to Shimada for instance, taken alone or in combination with the prior art of record, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 17 in combination with the all other limitations of claim 17. Specifically, Shimada discloses various limitations of base claim 17: a driving device comprising: a member; and a vibration actuator configured to move the member (para 76), wherein the vibration actuator includes: a vibrating body (Fig. 1 vibrator 2) configured to include an electro-mechanical energy conversion element (Fig. 1 piezoelectric element 4) and an elastic body (Fig. 1 elastic member 3) and have two vibration modes (See Fig. 3A and 3B, para 39) having a common node area that is of both the two vibration modes and is shared between the two vibration modes (See Fig. 6A and 6B, para 43); a contact body configured to come into contact with the elastic body (Fig. 1 slider 9); and an abutment body (Fig. 1 pressing member 6) configured to include an abutment member (Fig. 4 protrusions 61-1 and 61-2) that abuts on the common node area on a side opposite to a side on which the abutment body faces the contact body (See Fig. 4).
However, Shimada does not disclose that “the vibration actuator is configured such that an attraction force between the vibrating body and the abutment body is generated by a magnetic force.” Further, US 20180041141 A1 to Shinzato et al. discloses projections of the elastic member may come press contact with the contact body by making the elastic body and contact body drawn mutually by magnetic force generated by a magnetic circuit formed between the contact body and elastic body (See para 37), but does not disclose that the vibration actuator is configured such that an attraction force between the vibrating body and the abutment body is generated by a magnetic force. Therefore, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, 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 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights