DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The applicant argues on page 9 that Gunawan does not teach a load on a levitating diamagnet because the entire levitating structures in figures 5 and 7 do not have a load, but have a shape of a vehicle, thereby clearly suggesting that the levitating structures are entirely diamagnetic. The examiner does not agree with these arguments made by the applicant, however, for additional clarity, new grounds of rejection is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-7, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunawan (US 10800268) in view of Littlefield (US 3196566).
In re claims 1 and 21, Gunawan, in figures 1-11, discloses a passive magnetic bearing using diamagnetic levitation, comprising: a first dipole magnet and a second dipole magnet disposed substantially in parallel (as best shown in figures 1-2 and 5-6), wherein the first dipole magnet and the second dipole magnet are substantially linear (as seen in the figures); a single levitating diamagnet at least partially disposed on the first dipole-line magnet and the second dipole magnet, wherein the single levitating diamagnet is substantially linear (as seen in the figures). Gunawan does not explicitly disclose the load completely disposed on a single levitating diamagnet, or the claimed shape of the levitating diamagnet as claimed in the newly added claim language in clams 1 and 21. Littlefield however, in figures 1-4, discloses a similar device having a load (12) completely disposed on a single levitating magnet structure (24). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned a load as taught by Littlefield on the levitating magnetic structure of Gunawan to levitate or to transport the load. Gunawan also teaches that “…the diamagnetic object can be cast, carved, or otherwise shaped into a variety of different shapes…” (see paragraph 3, column 5 of the disclosure). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the levitating diamagnet of Gunawan in the claimed shape, or any other shape, as disclosed by Gunawan in the above cited portion of the disclosure as a matter of design choice. Furthermore, it’s been held that determining a shape of a known device is a matter of design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In re claim 4, Gunawan, in figures 1-11, discloses that each of the levitating diamagnet, the first dipole magnet, and the second dipole magnet extend in a lengthwise direction (as best seen in figures 1, 4, and 8-9).
In re claim 5, Gunawan, in figures 1-11, discloses that the first dipole magnet and the second dipole magnet extend in a lengthwise direction (as best seen in figures 1, 4, and 8-9).
In re claim 6, Gunawan, in figures 1-11, discloses that the first dipole magnet and the second dipole magnet have a permanent magnetic field in a lateral direction (generating a permanent magnetic field is inherent to the shown magnets; the claimed direction is clearly shown by arrows in figures 1-2 and 5-6).
In re claim 7, Gunawan, in figures 1-11, discloses that the levitating diamagnet is suspended in a substantially perpendicular direction relative to the lateral direction of the permanent magnetic field (as best seen in figures 1-2 and 5-6).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunawan (US 10800268) in view of Ren (US 2023/0246569).
In re claims 23-24, Gunawan teaches the claimed device except for the enclosure having reduced air pressure. Ren however, teaches a similar device, that also includes an enclosure having reduced air pressure (see paragraph 25 discussing a vacuum tube). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted an enclosure with reduced air pressure as taught by Ren to the device of Gunawan to reduce air friction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights