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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wada in view of Rosa fails to disclose “columnar inter-coil reinforcing members” and “each of the columnar inter-coil reinforcing members is attached to the cooling plate or is formed integrally with the cooling plate.” Examiner disagrees.
Columnar is defined in Cambridge Dictionary as “having a tall or long, narrow shape, like a column.” The sidewalls of Wada’s case main body 22b is “tall or long, narrow shape, like a column.” Thus, Wada discloses a “columnar inter-coil reinforcing members.”
Rosa in ¶ [0032] discloses “heat sink K furthermore assumes the function of accommodating coils S1, S2, S3; S1’, S2’, S3.” Wada discloses “the case 22 may be formed of a metal material such as nonmagnetic stainless steel.” Combining Wada and Rosa, Wada’s case 22 can be made of a metal material to function as a heat sink as disclosed in Rosa, where the sidewalls of Wada acting as the reinforcing members are formed integrally with the heat sink.
In view of the reasons above, the argument is not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (WO 2019/150718 A1) in view of Da Conceicao Rosa (US 2016/0102928 A1; hereinafter Rosa).
Regarding claim 1, Wada discloses a linear motor (100) comprising:
a plurality of multi-phase coil groups (24) that are arranged linearly and generate linear power in an arrangement direction depending on flowing multi-phase ACs (FIG 1; mover 50);
columnar inter-coil reinforcing members (the sidewalls of case main body 22b) that are respectively provided between each adjacent pair of the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (20) to increase stiffness of an armature (10) including the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (20),
Wada does not disclose a cooling plate that supports the plurality of multi-phase coil groups; and
wherein each of the columnar inter-coil reinforcing members is attached to the cooling plate or is formed integrally with the cooling plate.
Rosa discloses a cooling plate (1, K) that supports the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (S1-S3, S1’-S3’).
Rosa in ¶ [0032] discloses “heat sink K furthermore assumes the function of accommodating coils S1, S2, S3; S1’, S2’, S3.” Wada discloses “the case 22 may be formed of a metal material such as nonmagnetic stainless steel.” Combining Wada and Rosa, Wada’s case 22 can be made of a metal material to function as a heat sink as disclosed in Rosa, where the sidewalls of Wada acting as the reinforcing members are formed integrally with the heat sink.
Thus, Wada in view of Rosa combined discloses the limitation “wherein each of the columnar inter-coil reinforcing members is attached to the cooling plate or is formed integrally with the cooling plate”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Wada in view of Rosa to disclose a cooling plate that supports the plurality of multi-phase coil groups; and wherein each of the columnar inter-coil reinforcing members is attached to the cooling plate or is formed integrally with the cooling plate, for the advantages of a heat sink for effective cooling with lowest possible effort (¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 5/1, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 1. Wada further discloses end portion-reinforcing members (22b; casing 22 also reinforces both ends of the stator 10) that are provided at both end portions in the arrangement direction of the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (24; FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 6/1, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 1. Rosa further discloses the cooling plate (1, K) is provided on one end surfaces of the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (S) and cools the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (S1-S3, S1’-S3’; ¶ [0031], [0033]).
Regarding claim 7/6, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 6. Rosa further discloses wherein the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (S1-S3, S1’-S3’) are provided on both surfaces of the cooling plate (1, K; ¶ [0031] coil can be on one or both side of the heat sink).
Regarding claim 8/7, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 7. Wada further discloses a supported portion (20) that extends further to an outer peripheral side that the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (24), and
a support member (30, 31) that supports both surfaces of the supported portion (20) is provided.
Wada does not disclose the cooling plate and the plurality of multi-phase coil groups provided on the both surfaces of the cooling plate.
Rosa discloses the cooling plate (1, K) and the plurality of multi-phase coil groups (S1-S3, S1’-S3’) provided on the both surfaces of the cooling plate (1, K; ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Wada in view of Rosa to disclose the cooling member and the plurality of multi-phase coil groups provided on the both surfaces of the cooling member, for the advantages of a heat sink for effective cooling with lowest possible effort (¶ [0005]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (WO 2019/150718 A1) in view of Da Conceicao Rosa (US 2016/0102928 A1; hereinafter Rosa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouyang et al. (CN 111769714 A).
Regarding claim 2/1, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 1. Wada in view of Rosa does not disclose a width of a space, in which the inter-coil reinforcing member is provided, in the arrangement direction is equal to a natural number multiple of 60° in terms of an electrical angle of the multi-phase AC.
Ouyang discloses a width of a space (in FIG. 1), in which the inter-coil reinforcing member (of Wada) is provided, in the arrangement direction is equal to a natural number multiple of 60° in terms of an electrical angle of the multi-phase AC (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
1098
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Wada in view of Rosa, further in view of Ouyang to disclose a width of a space, in which the inter-coil reinforcing member is provided, in the arrangement direction is equal to a natural number multiple of 60° in terms of an electrical angle of the multi-phase AC, for the advantages of symmetrical distribution in space, eliminating the inductance asymmetry phenomenon.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (WO 2019/150718 A1) in view of Da Conceicao Rosa (US 2016/0102928 A1; hereinafter Rosa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouyang et al. (CN 111769714 A) and Miyata et al. (US 2009/0230806 A1).
Regarding claim 3/1, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 1. Wada further discloses herein each of the multi-phase coil groups (24) is a three-phase coil group (see below) that includes a U-phase coil, a V-phase coil, and a W-phase coil arranged linearly and generates linear power in the arrangement direction depending on flowing three-phase ACs (FIG 1; mover 50), and
two three-phase coil groups (24) which are adjacent to each other in the arrangement direction via the columnar inter-coil reinforcing member (22).
PNG
media_image2.png
250
1090
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wada in view of Rosa does not disclose an arrangement order of the U-phase coil, the V-phase coil, and the W-phase coil is different in two three-phase coil groups which are adjacent to each other in the arrangement direction and through which the three-phase ACs having phases opposite to each other flow.
Ouyang discloses an arrangement order of the U-phase coil (C phase), the V-phase coil (A phase), and the W-phase coil (B phase) is different in two three-phase coil groups (first module 1, second module 2, third module 3) which are adjacent to each other in the arrangement direction (horizontal direction; FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Wada in view of Rosa, further in view of Ouyang to disclose an arrangement order of the U-phase coil, the V-phase coil, and the W-phase coil is different in two three-phase coil groups which are adjacent to each other in the arrangement direction, for the advantages of symmetrical distribution in space, eliminating the inductance asymmetry phenomenon.
Miyata discloses through which the three-phase ACs having phases opposite to each other flow (FIG. 28A, 28B; ¶ [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Wada in view of Rosa, further in view of Miyata to disclose through which the three-phase ACs having phases opposite to each other flow, for the advantages of no useless coil end portions are formed, increasing coil utility factor (¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 4/3, Wada in view of Rosa, Ouyang and Miyata was discussed above in claim 3. Ouyang further discloses wherein a width of a space, in which the inter-coil reinforcing member is provided, in the arrangement direction is equal to 60° in terms of an electrical angle of the three-phase AC (above annotation discloses the primary modules are 60 electrical degrees apart, and
regarding the two three-phase coil groups (1-3) which are adjacent to each other in the arrangement direction via the columnar inter-coil reinforcing member (disclosed by Wada) and through which the three-phase ACs having phases opposite to each other flow (disclosed by Miyata), the U-phase coil (C phase), the V-phase coil (A phase), and the W-phase coil (B phase) are arranged in order in a first three-phase coil group (2), and the V-phase coil (A phase), the W-phase coil (B phase), and the U-phase coil (C phase) are arranged in order in a second three-phase coil group (1).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (WO 2019/150718 A1) in view of Da Conceicao Rosa (US 2016/0102928 A1; hereinafter Rosa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinohira et al. (US 2007/0056958 A1).
Regarding claim 9/1, Wada in view of Rosa was discussed above in claim 1. Wada in view of Rosa does not disclose a positioning device that uses the linear motor according to claim 1 as a power source.
Shinohira discloses a positioning device (10) that uses the linear motor (20) according to claim 1 as a power source (FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Wada in view of Rosa, further in view of Shinohira to disclose a positioning device that uses the linear motor according to claim 1 as a power source, as the use of linear motors for use on a semiconductor manufacturing device is very well known within the art.
Regarding claim 10/9, Wada in view of Rosa and Shinohira was discussed above in claim 9. Shinohira further discloses a processing apparatus (FIG. 1) that processes a workpiece positioned by the positioning device (10) according to claim 9 (¶ [0005] discloses the positioning device is used for manufacturing workpieces like semiconductors, liquid crystals etc.).
Regarding claim 11/10, Wada in view of Rosa and Shinohira was discussed above in claim 10. Shinohira further discloses a device manufacturing method of manufacturing a device (semiconductor, liquid crystal) through processing of the workpiece performed by the processing apparatus (FIG. 1) according to claim 10 (¶ [0016] discloses the method of operating the apparatus).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Seye 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 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.
/MINKI CHANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights