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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 November 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[0003], change “including” to –includes-- and change “causing” to –causes--.
In ¶[0005], change “including” to –includes--.
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.
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.
In claims 1, 11 & 20, the functional recitation “…the rotor comprising a pair of recessed sections to permit, during rotations of the rotor, a minimum distance between the magnet and the multi-coil structure and a minimum length of end turns of the first coil and the second coil to increase efficiency of the actuator…” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the claimed structure of “a pair of recessed sections” permits “a minimum distance between the magnet and the multi-coil structure and a minimum length of end turns of the first coil and the second coil to increase efficiency of the actuator…” Also, “minimum distance” and “minimum length” is relative terminology with no clear basis. Further, for the same reasons, functional recitations “causing, by a processing device, the rotor to rotate at a maximum angular acceleration that is associated with the minimum distance…” (claim 1) and “a processing device configured to: cause the rotor to rotate at a maximum angular acceleration that is associated with the minimum distance…” (claims 11 & 20) are vague and indefinite.
Similarly, in claims 6 & 17, “using the first recessed section and the second recessed section to achieve the minimum distance between the magnet and the multi-coil structure during the rotations of the rotor to maximize efficiency of the actuator” is vague and indefinite as no specific structure is set forth for the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-20 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagu (US 5,424,632) in view of Cuenoud (US 4,595,849).
Regarding claim 1, Montagu generally teaches the claimed method comprising:
providing an actuator 17 coupled to an optical element (mirror) 15, the actuator comprising a rotor 100, a magnet 27, and a multi-coil structure 50 comprising a first coil and a second coil (i.e., two coil portions 75 disposed on opposite sides of rotor; abstract; c.7:52-58), the magnet is attached to the rotor and each are enclosed within the multi-coil structure (Fig.13),
the rotor comprising a pair of recessed sections (not numbered; Fig.2)…;
causing, by a processing device, the rotor 100 to rotate “at a maximum angular acceleration that is associated with the minimum distance” [sic] (i.e., torque motor rotates mirror; c.5:50-64); and
transmitting an optical beam towards the optical element to cause the optical element to scatter the optical beam into free-space (inherent to scanning system 10 comprising torque motor that rotates mirror; c.1:12-16; c.5:50-64; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
419
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Montagu’s structure does not appear to teach a method that permits, during rotations of the rotor, “a minimum distance between the magnet and the multi-coil structure and a minimum length of end turns of the first coil and the second coil to increase efficiency of the actuator” [sic] in the sense that the coil end turns do not “bend away from the axis of rotation” such that they are “housed in the recessed sections” as described in the specification ¶[0024]-¶[0025].
But, Cuenoud teaches a small motor including a rotor with permanent magnet 4 and first and second part-coils 2 & 3, the magnet attached to the rotor and each enclosed within the multi-coil structure (Figs.1-5), the coil end turns bent away from the axis of rotation so that the inner periphery of the part-coils 2 and 3 is adapted to the cylindrical shape of the permanent magnet 4. In this way the permanent magnet 4 is surrounded completely by the shell-like part-coils 2 and 3 with only slight clearance, whereby the vacant space between the armature and stator is in practice completely filled by the coil-turns (c.3:13-44). This improves motor efficiency and facilitates compact and simple construction (c.1:40-c.2:11).
PNG
media_image2.png
364
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Montagu and provide a method permitting, during rotations of the rotor, “a minimum distance between the magnet and the multi-coil structure and a minimum length of end turns of the first coil and the second coil to increase efficiency of the actuator” [sic] since Cuenoud teaches providing coil end turns bent away from the axis of rotation so that the inner periphery of the coil is adapted to the cylindrical shape of the permanent magnet and completely surrounds it with only a slight clearance would have improved motor efficiency and facilitates compact and simple construction.
Regarding claim 2, Montagu’s oscillatory motor rotates the optical element in rotational oscillatory motion, i.e., in a limited rotation range of about 15 degrees (c.1:12-16). Similarly, Cuenoud’s oscillatory motor oscillates in a range dependent upon the external loading and tuning (c.5:16-22).
Regarding claim 3, the combination in particular Cuenoud teaches the multi-coil structure comprises a hole 2a, 2b, 3a, 3c passing through the multi-coil structure, and further comprising: enclosing the rotor and the magnet within the multi-coil structure by assembling the multi-coil structure around the rotor and the magnet and without inserting the rotor through an opening of the hole passing through the multi-coil structure (i.e., two part-coils attach against one another with their faces pointed inwards and orientated in parallel with their plane of winding; Figs.1-5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the rotor rotates about an axis of rotation, and further comprising: inserting a first group of end turns of the first coil 2 and the second coil 3 of Cuenoud into a first recessed section of the pair of recessed sections of Montagu to provide, during the rotations of the rotor, a first clearance between the rotor and the first coil and the second coil; and inserting a second group of end turns of the first coil and the second coil into a second recessed section of the pair of recessed sections to provide, during the rotations of the rotor, a second clearance between the rotor and the first coil and the second coil.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches a sub-group of end turns of the first group of end turns in the first recessed section of Montagu that are associated with the first coil of Cuenoud and a sub-group of end turns of the first group of end turns in the first recessed section of Montagu that are associated with the second coil of Cuenoud are separated by a first distance, and wherein a sub-group of end turns of the second group of end turns in the second recessed section of Montagu that are associated with the first coil of Cuenoud and a sub-group of end turns of the second group of end turns in the second recessed section of Montagu that are associated with the second coil of Cuenoud are separated by a second distance (i.e., sub-groups of Montagu’s coils are separated, Figs.6&13; similarly, sub-groups of Cuenoud’s part-coils are separated due to clam-shell construction, Fig.1), and further comprising: maintaining the first distance and the second distance to reduce a loss associated with the end turns of the first coil and the second coil (i.e., improved efficiency per Cuenoud c.1:62-66).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches using the first recessed section and the second recessed section to achieve the minimum distance between the magnet and the multi-coil structure during the rotations of the rotor to maximize efficiency of the actuator (i.e., improved efficiency per Cuenoud c.1:62-66).
Regarding claim 7, the combination further teaches a first bearing having a first hole and a second bearing having a second hole, and further comprising: constraining an output shaft of the rotor within the first bearing via the first hole; and constraining a rear shaft of the rotor within the second bearing via the second hole (Montagu’s bearings 40, 42, Fig.2 & Cuenoud’s bearing openings 8, 9 in flanges 6, 7, Fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, in Montagu the first recessed section of the pair of recessed sections is between the output shaft 14 of the rotor and the magnet 27, and the second recessed section of the pair of recessed sections is between the rear shaft 16 of the rotor and the magnet 27 (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Montagu teaches electrically connecting the first coil and the second coil in series (c.7:54-57). Cuenoud also teaches this (c.2:6-10).
Regarding claim 10, both Montagu (c.7:59-61) and Cuenoud (c.4:1-25) teach passing a first input current through the first coil and the second coil.
Apparatus claims 11-20 are rejected on the same grounds as the corresponding method claims 1-10. It is noted that the preamble recitation “a frequency modulate continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system” of claims 11 & 20 is not given patentable weight. The body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Further, Montagu comprises an optical source (inherent to scanner system 10) that transmits a light beam to the optical element (mirror) 15 and a processor (including subtraction circuit 13 & amplifier 11) that drives the torque motor (c.5:50-64; Fig.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights