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 May 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1 and 15-20 are now pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 May 2026, have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 2 of the Remarks) alleges that Sugita does not disclose the excitation unit being “wound with a respective one of the plurality of coils” as recited in claim 1, because the cores [125] are located on the outside of the coils rather than inside of the coils. However, the language of the claims (i.e. “wound with” the coils) does not imply any particular relationship in terms of the radial inside or radial outside location. As such, the feature upon which the argument relies is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Sugita are maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 2-3 of the Remarks) alleges that, because the windings [119] of Sugita are disclosed between the two cores [121,125], the “structure of Sugita is therefore different from that recited in Claim 1, and Sugita cannot achieve the same effect as the apparatus of Claim 1”. No explanation or evidence is presented in support of these allegations, making it unclear what “structure” is allegedly different from that claimed, and unclear how the effect of reducing heat conduction, evidenced as shown in the grounds of rejection (as cited in ¶ 0039), is not disclosed by Sugita. As such, this argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Sugita are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 3 of the Remarks) alleges that Sugita does not disclose the acting unit [121] not being fixed to the “stand” while the excitation unit [125] is fixed to the stand. Since the acting unit is now also defined as being “closer to the permanent magnet than the excitation unit”, this argument is persuasive since both cores are fixed relative to the stand.
However, while the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been overcome, the Remarks do not provide any explanation of where any support for the amendment can be found in the application as originally filed. As shown in figure 1 of the application, both the excitation unit [105] and the acting unit [104] are connected to and fixed to the linear stands [102]. While the excitation unit [105] “is connected to the acting-side cores 104 via the thermal insulation portions 101 and arranged so as not to be directly connected to the linear stands 102”, it is still “fixed”, i.e. fastened in position, relative to said linear stands. Thus, the amended limitation of claim 1 constitutes new matter and is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “an excitation unit that is not fixed to the stand” and “an acting unit that… is fixed to the stand” (lines 9-11). As shown in figure 1 of the application, both the excitation unit [105] and the acting unit [104] are connected to and fixed to the linear stands [102]. While the excitation unit [105] “is connected to the acting-side cores 104 via the thermal insulation portions 101 and arranged so as not to be directly connected to the linear stands 102”, it is still “fixed”, i.e. fastened in position, relative to said linear stands. Thus, the present amendment to claim 1, reciting the limitation that the excitation unit “is not fixed to the stand”, constitutes new matter as no corresponding disclosure exists in the application as originally filed.
Claims 15-20 are rejected solely due to their dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, a transport apparatus comprising:
a stator including a plurality of cores and a plurality of coils that excite the plurality of cores, respectively;
a movable element including a permanent magnet arranged at a position facing the plurality of coils;
a stand including a guide rail; and
a carriage including the movable element and configured to travel on the guide rail in contact with the guide rail,
wherein each of the plurality of cores includes an excitation unit that is not fixed to the stand and is wound with a respective one each of the plurality of coils, and an acting unit that is closer to the permanent magnet than the excitation unit, is fixed to the stand, and is configured to be magnetically coupled to the excitation unit, and
further wherein each of the plurality of cores further includes an airgap or a heat conduction reduction portion between the excitation unit and the acting unit, wherein the heat conduction reduction portion reduces heat conduction from the excitation unit to the acting unit more than in a case where the excitation unit and the acting unit are in direct contact with each other.
While the prior art discloses transport apparatuses as previously cited, it does not disclose the arrangement where the excitation unit, farther from the permanent magnet than the acting unit, is not fixed to the stand. The prior art discloses the one of the acting and excitation units located closer to the permanent magnets being thermally isolated from the stands by the heat conduction reduction portion, while the present application discloses the one of the acting and excitation units located farther from the permanent magnets being thermally isolated from the stands by the heat conduction reduction portion. There having been found no motivation in the prior art as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would rearrange the units as discussed above, this distinction would be neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art. Thus, if the claims were amended to recite the excitation unit being isolated from the stands by the heat conduction reduction portion, rather than being “not fixed to the stand” as currently recited, the claims could be placed in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Yamakata et al. (US 2009/0033165 A1) discloses a linear motor comprising a wound stator and mover having permanent magnets.
Joong et al. (US 6,825,581 B1) discloses a linear motor comprising a wound stator and mover having permanent magnets.
Kubo (US 2003/0141769 A1) discloses a linear motor comprising a wound stator and mover having permanent magnets, having resin insulators between portions of the stator.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights