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 27 October 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1 and 15-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 27 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 1-2 of the Remarks) alleges that the prior art does not disclose “an airgap or heat conduction reduction portion” as recited in claim 1. While the argument mentions the Sugita reference and some of its other disclosures, the argument does not address the specific grounds of rejection or give any explanation, or supporting evidence, as to why the existing grounds of rejection should be considered invalid. Thus, the argument does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because it does not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. As such, the previous grounds of rejection in view of Sugita have been maintained.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugita et al. (US 2010/0171374 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Sugita”.
Regarding claim 1, Sugita discloses a transport apparatus (fig. 8-9) comprising:
a stator [103] including a plurality of cores [121,125] and a plurality of coils [119] that excite the plurality of cores [121,125], respectively (fig. 8-9; ¶ 0039);
a movable element [101] including a permanent magnet [109] arranged at a position facing the plurality of coils [119] (fig. 1, 8-9; ¶ 0028, 0039; “component parts that are the same as those shown in FIGS. 1 to 6 are denoted by reference numerals obtained by adding 100 to the reference numerals affixed to their counterparts in FIGS. 1 to 6”; e.g. the descriptions of “mover 1” and “permanent magnet array 9” correspond to elements 101 and 109, respectively, shown in figures 8-9),
a stand [fixation portions] including a guide rail [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0030; “guide rails 2 are fixed to fixation portions (not shown)”); and
a carriage [5] including the movable element [101] and configured to travel on the guide rail [2] in contact with the guide rail [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0028),
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of cores [121,125] includes an excitation unit [125] wound with each of the plurality of coils [119] and an acting unit [121] fixed to the stand [fixation portions] and configured to be magnetically coupled to the excitation unit [125] (fig. 8-9; ¶ 0040), and
further includes an airgap or a heat conduction reduction portion [123] between the excitation unit [125] and the acting unit [121] (fig. 9; ¶ 0039), wherein the heat conduction reduction portion [123] reduces heat conduction from the excitation unit [125] to the acting unit [121] more than in a case where the excitation unit [125] and the acting unit [121] are in direct contact with each other (¶ 0039; the heat conduction reduction portion is made from “an insulating resin 123 such as an epoxy resin; epoxy resins are well-known as having lower thermal conductivities than the iron used to form the magnetic cores).
Regarding claim 17, Sugita discloses the transport apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the plurality of coils [119] is arranged along a first direction [x] (fig. 8), and
wherein the movable element [101] is capable of moving in the first direction [x] while floating relative to the stator [103] (fig. 8; ¶ 0006; the magnets are arrayed in the movement direction, vertically in the figure, without contacting the stator).
Regarding claim 18, Sugita discloses the transport apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the excitation unit [125] and the acting unit [121] are arranged to face each other with the heat conduction reduction portion [123] interposed therebetween (fig. 9; the acting unit is closest to the mover, followed by the heat conduction reduction portion, then the excitation unit).
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.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita in view of Atkinson et al. (US 2012/0200177 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Atkinson”.
Regarding claim 15, Sugita discloses the transport apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the heat conduction reduction portion [123] is formed of a material [resin] having a lower thermal conductivity than a material [iron] forming the excitation unit [125] and the acting unit [121] (¶ 0039).
Sugita does not disclose that the heat conduction reduction portion [123] is formed of a magnetic material.
Atkinson discloses a heat conduction reduction portion [electrical insulation] formed of a magnetic material having a lower thermal conductivity iron (¶ 0133-0135; the insulation is made of powder consisting of “pure iron having an insulating oxygen- and phosphorus-containing barrier”; thus, the oxygen/phosphorus reduces the heat conduction of the iron while maintaining its magnetic conductivity).
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 resin heat conduction reduction portion of Sugita from a powder comprising particles of pure iron insulated by an oxygen- and phosphorus-containing barrier as taught by Atkinson, in order to reduce the heat conduction of the iron while maintaining its magnetic conductivity.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita.
Regarding claim 16, Sugita discloses the transport apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above.
Sugita does not disclose that a cross-sectional area of the heat conduction reduction portion [123] is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the acting unit [121].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the cross-sectional area of the acting unit, making it larger than that of the heat conduction reduction portion, in order to increase the amount of magnetic flux the stator could transmit to the stator, thereby avoiding saturation and allowing for increased thrust.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the acting unit and heat conduction reduction portion of Sugita with the relative dimensions claimed, for the purpose discussed above, and since the only difference between the acting unit and heat conduction reduction portion of Sugita and the claimed acting unit and heat conduction reduction portion is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita in view of Chitayat (US 5,723,917), hereinafter referred to as “Chitayat”.
Regarding claim 19, Sugita discloses the transport apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above.
Sugita does not disclose that the excitation unit [125] and the acting unit [121] are each formed of a silicon steel plate (¶ 0039; Sugita only broadly discloses “iron”).
Chitayat discloses a transport apparatus, wherein the excitation unit [48] and the acting unit [46] are each formed of a silicon steel plate (fig. 2; col. 4, lines 52-65; the stator is formed of coils formed on “silicon steel laminates”).
PNG
media_image2.png
256
662
media_image2.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 form the excitation and acting units of Sugita from silicon steel plates as taught by Chitayat, in order to reduce eddy currents thereby reducing drag on the stator and improving performance (col. 4, lines 58-65 of Chitayat).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommerhalter, Jr. (US 2016/0164395 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Sommerhalter”, in view of Sugita.
Regarding claim 20, Sommerhalter discloses a method of fabricating an article comprising:
transporting a workpiece by the movable element [116] of the transport apparatus [100] (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0029, 0031), and
performing a processing operation on the workpiece (¶ 0003-0004).
Sommerhalter does not the transport apparatus according to claim 1.
Sugita discloses the transport apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transport apparatus as taught by Sugita in a method of fabricating an article of Sommerhalter, in order to provide for an enhanced maximum driving force (¶ 0004 of Sugita), allowing the apparatus to transport larger workpieces, and using a reduced amount of iron (¶ 0005 of Sugita), thereby reducing the cost of the apparatus.
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
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