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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 19 recites “each of the plurality of linear motors is substantially parallel each other”. It should be rewritten as “each of the plurality of linear motors is substantially parallel with each other”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as it recites the limitation “a lattice shape” in line 18. The limitation renders the scope of the claim unclear as a “lattice” is not a shape limitation, but rather a pattern limitation. A lattice can be of any shape as the term can be understood to be flexible and compliant given a reference. Without a given reference, the limitation is thus able to conform into whatever shape is desired. As such, the limitation should be claimed as “a lattice pattern. Also, claim 8 which recites “a lattice pattern” in line 2-3 should be disclosed as “the lattice pattern”, “another lattice pattern”, or the like. For the same reason, dependent claims 2-7 & 9-12 are rejected as well by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim 10 is rejected as it recites the limitation “the inner space” in line 5. The limitation “the inner space” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous whether it refers to the inner space of the first member recited in claim 9 line 3, or if it refers to the inner space of the second member recited in claim 9 line 7. As such, it is unclear how the limitation should be read. For the same reason, dependent claim 11 is rejected as well by virtue of its dependencies.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma et al (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2007142359 A) hereinafter Fukuma, further in view of Fukugawa (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2012157186 A), and further in view of To Tamaki et al (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2013009563 A) hereinafter To Tamaki.
Regarding claim 1, Fukuma discloses (Title: Linear Head Module) a linear head module (linear head module, p. 1, ll. 1) comprising a plurality of linear motors (motor 3, p. 5, l. 3), each of the plurality of linear motors comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
279
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
277
367
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a movable element comprising:
a shaft (output shaft 2, p. 2, ll. 4) having a shaft axis (line HH depicted in FIG. 11, p. 7, ll. 23) and an outer peripheral surface (surface output shaft 2) around the shaft axis; and
a plurality of magnets (magnet 3a, p. 2, ll. 4) fixed to the outer peripheral surface of the shaft (FIG. 2 depicts along the output shaft 2 surrounded by magnets 3a); and
a stator comprising:
a back yoke (housing 1, p. 2, ll. 4) which has a back yoke axis (line HH) and an inner peripheral surface around the back yoke axis and in which the movable element is inserted to be movable along the shaft axis such that the shaft axis substantially coincides with the back yoke axis (as depicted in FIG. 2), the back yoke including a protruding portion (fixing screws 14 and nuts 15, p. 6, ll. 37) that protrudes outwardly (FIG. 12 depicts elements 14 & 15 protruding outwardly from each linear motor); and
a coil (coil 3b, p. 2, ll. 4) fixed to the inner peripheral surface of the back yoke to face the plurality of magnets with a gap between the coil and the plurality of magnets (as depicted in FIG. 2); and
the plurality of linear motors being arranged in a lattice shape such that the shaft axis of each of the plurality of linear motors is substantially parallel each other (FIGS. 2, 11, & 12 depicts the plurality of linear motors arranged as such, all arranged in a lattice and parallel orientation).
However, Fukuma fails to disclose a linear head module wherein protrusion extends continuously along the back yoke axis.
Fukugawa discloses (Title: Linear Motor) a linear motor (linear motor 1, p. 2, ll. 7) wherein the back yoke (yoke main body 51, p. 2, ll. 22) includes a protruding portion that protrudes outwardly (projection 53, p. 2, ll. 27; also called convex portions 53) and that extends along the back yoke axis (p. 2, ll. 28-30, “The convex portion 53 is formed along the axial direction over substantially the entire length of the yoke main body portion 51”).
PNG
media_image4.png
236
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
163
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fukuma discloses a linear head module comprising of a plurality of linear motors each with a movable element, a stator, and an arrangement of the plurality of linear motors such that they are all parallel from one another and formed into a lattice shape. Fukuma also discloses of protruding portions, but does not cover the entire length of the linear motor, only providing it to the ends to be provided with screws and nuts. Fukagawa discloses a linear motor that has a projection extending outwardly from the yoke, running along the length of the yoke. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the projection like structure from the yoke body of Fukagawa, and implement the structure into the yoke/stator of Fukuma’s disclosure as it would have allowed for securing a region that connects the coils of the linear motor to an outside/exposed cable via an opening portion tunnel like structure (Fukagawa, p. 4, ll. 14-18; also as depicted in Fukagawa FIG. 1a). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as having an accessible method for contacting the coils of the linear motor would allow an operator to easily test the functionality of the coils without wasting time and resources deconstructing the linear motor.
However, both Fukuma and Fukugawa both fail to disclose the plurality of linear motors arranged such that the protruding portion of a first linear motor among the plurality of linear motors protrudes along a first protruding direction different from a second protruding direction along which the protruding portion of a second linear motor among the plurality of linear motors protrudes.
To Tamaki discloses (Title: Linear Motor) a plurality of linear motors (linear motor 1, p. 2, ll. 10) arranged such that the protruding portion of a first linear motor among the plurality of linear motors protrudes along a first protruding direction different from a second protruding direction along which the protruding portion of a second linear motor among the plurality of linear motors protrudes (linear motor units 3, p. 2, ll. 10; annotated FIG. 1 depicts a first and second linear motor at opposite ends of the plurality of linear motors, each having the plate part 37d [protrusion] in their respective directions).
PNG
media_image6.png
417
262
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
306
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fukuma IVO Fukugawa discloses a linear head module comprising of a plurality of linear motors each with a movable element, a stator, and an arrangement of the plurality of linear motors such that they are all parallel from one another and formed into a lattice shape with protrusions. To Tamaki discloses a linear motor that has a two of the opposite ended linear motors having a projection protruding in a first and second direction, as depicted in To Tamaki FIG. 1. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the projection [plate part 37d] from To Tamaki’s disclosure and apply it to the two linear motors at the end of the plurality to allow for mounting of the linear motors, serving as attachment points between the back yoke of the stator to an external member such as a frame for a secure assembly (To Tamaki, p. 4, ll. 29-34).
Regarding claim 2, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above, and Fukuma further discloses the plurality of linear motors arranged such that a first number of first direction linear motors arranged in a first direction (annotated FIG. 12 below depicts the first direction, the linear motors in the first direction having a number of two linear motors) perpendicular to the shaft axis is less than a second number of second direction linear motors arranged in a second direction (annotated FIG. 12 below depicts the second direction, the linear motors in the second direction having a number of four linear motors) perpendicular to the shaft axis and the first direction,
PNG
media_image8.png
372
609
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fukuma IVO To Tamaki further teaches the linear head module wherein the protruding portion of a third linear motor positioned at one end in the second direction among the second direction linear motors protrudes in the first protruding direction along the second direction, the protruding portion of a fourth linear motor positioned at another end opposite to the one end in the second direction among the second direction linear motors protrudes in the second protruding direction along the second direction, the first protruding direction being away from the another end, the second protruding direction being away from the one end
(Fukuma discloses of the arrangement of the first, second, third, and fourth linear motors such that along their respective paths, the first linear motor is positioned at an opposite end to the second linear motor in the first direction, as annotated in Fukuma FIG. 12 above. Along the second direction, third linear motor is positioned at an opposite end to the fourth linear motor in the first direction. To Tamaki further teaches that end linear motors have protruding portions that face in the first or second protruding direction, respectively, as seen in To Tamaki FIG. 1), and
wherein the protruding portion of a fifth linear motor positioned between the third linear motor and the fourth linear motor among the second direction linear motors (any of the plurality of linear motors located between the third and fourth linear motors, as depicted in annotated Fukuma FIG. 12 above) protrudes outward in a third protruding direction along the first direction (annotated Fukuma FIG. 12 above depicts the third protruding direction).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 2 in the manner of providing projections on the yoke of for operator accessibility and securing of linear motors).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above, and Fukuma further discloses the linear head module further comprising:
a first frame (frame 8, p. 5, ll. 8) connected to a base and (surface mount device S, p. 5, ll. 3) supporting one side of the plurality of linear motors along the shaft axis (FIG. 13 depicts frame 8 supporting one side, as annotated); and
PNG
media_image9.png
397
512
media_image9.png
Greyscale
a second frame (frame 8; both individual supports are mapped as frame 8 [annotated FIG. 13 points out each element]) connected to the base opposite to the first frame and supporting another side of the plurality of linear motors along the shaft axis (as depicted in annotated FIG. 13).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 3 in the manner of providing projections on the yoke of for operator accessibility and securing of linear motors).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, and further in view of Kano et al (U.S. Patent Publication 11456654 B2) hereinafter Kano.
Regarding claim 4, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all fail to further discloses a design value based on a ratio Ra of a cross-sectional area of the back yoke perpendicular to the shaft axis to a cross-sectional area of the plurality of magnets perpendicular to the shaft axis is within a predetermined numerical range.
Kano discloses (Title: Tubular Linear Motor) a linear head motor (tubular linear motor M1, col. 2, ll. 56) having a design value based on a ratio Ra (cross-sectional area, col. 1, ll. 45) of a cross-sectional area of the back yoke (outer tube 8, col. 3, ll. 66) perpendicular to the shaft axis (Axis A, col. 3, ll. 14) to a cross-sectional area of the plurality of magnets (core 2, col. 2, ll. 66) perpendicular to the shaft axis is within a predetermined numerical range (col. 1, ll. 50-53, “ the cross-sectional area thereof is proportional to the size of the diameter and hence has a maximum area so at an outer peripheral edge”).
PNG
media_image10.png
265
730
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, discloses a linear head module that is composed of a linear head motors, each comprising of elements such as a movable element, a stator provided with a yoke, and a plurality of magnets. Kano discloses of a linear motor that comprises of an outer tube and core, focusing on the details of the dimensions of each element and the how the dimensions alter the motor’s performance. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the dimension of the outer tube and core from Kano’s disclosure, and apply it to the dimensions of the Fukuma IVO Fukagawa and To Tamaki’s back yoke and plurality of magnets, respectively, as it is known that the ratio between the two elements alters magnetic flux and magnetic saturation. More specifically, minimizing the thickness of the outer tube would allow for the internal magnets and core to extend and have the greatest area, maximizing magnetic circuit within a compact motor (Kano, Summary of Invention). Also, maximizing the internal space allows for maximum area dedicated for the core, allowing for the inner peripheral edges of the core to become narrowest, resulting in bottlenecking and greatly improving motor thrust (Kano, col. 7, ll. 1-22).
Regarding claim 5 Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa, To Tamaki, and Kano, teaches the linear head module of claim 4, as detailed above, and Kano further discloses the cross-sectional area of the plurality of magnets (core 2) substantially twice the cross-sectional area of the back yoke (outer tube 8)
(col. 6, ll. 26-30, “supposing that the outside diameter of the outer tube 8 of the tubular linear motor M1 according to the present embodiment is a diameter between 60 mm and 100 mm and the outside diameter of the core 2 is a diameter between 50 mm and 83 mm”; calculating the maximum cross-sectional area between the outer tube 8 and core 2 equates to a cross-sectional area ratio of ≥2).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 4, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 5 in the manner of maximizing magnetic circuitry within limited space and improving motor thrust).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, and further in view of Kimura (W.O. Patent Application Publication 2019168100 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all fail to further disclose the stator including a foamed sheet which is provided between the inner peripheral surface of the back yoke and an outer peripheral surface of the coil and which is configured to expand with heat treatment.
Kimura discloses (Title: Armature Manufacturing Method and Armature) a stator (armature 1, p. 2, ll. 32) including a foamed sheet (insulating sheet 40, p. 2, ll. 33, “the insulating sheet 40 is a foamable insulating sheet”) which is provided between the inner peripheral surface of the back yoke (yoke portion 17, p. 3, ll. 30) and an outer peripheral surface of the coil (coil 30, p. 2, ll. 20) and which is configured to expand with heat treatment (p. 6, ll. 14-15, “the insulating sheet 40 is a foamable insulating sheet that expands by being foamed by heating”).
Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, discloses a linear head module that is composed of a linear head motors, each comprising of elements such as a movable element, a stator provided with a yoke, and a plurality of magnets. Kimura discloses of a motor that the yoke, coils, and an insulating foam sheet that is provided between the two. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take foamable insulating sheet from Kimura’s disclosure and apply it to the linear motor of Fukuma, IVO Fukagawa and To Tamaki, as it would allow for proper fixation of the coils within the slots of the yoke, ensuring to also suppress gap formation within the slots (Kimura, p. 22, ll. 7-13). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as it would shorten manufacturing time, heating multiple linear motors at the same time for the same length of time, ensuring that the motors have equivalent gaps and spaces formed for equivalent performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa, To Tamaki, Kimura, and further in view of Ciklaiblikci et al (W.O. Patent Publication 2021137778 A1) hereinafter Ciklaiblikci.
Regarding claim 7, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 6, as detailed above.
However, all fail to further disclose the coil hardened with varnish.
Ciklaiblikci discloses (Title: Electricity Generating System with Gravity Force) a coil hardened with varnish (p. 20, ll. 24, “coils are varnished”).
Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa, To Tamaki, and Kimura, discloses a linear head module that is composed of a linear head motors, each comprising of elements such as a movable element, a stator provided with a yoke, and a plurality of magnets. Ciklaiblikci discloses of a motor that the yoke, coils, and an insulating foam sheet that is provided between the two. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take varnish for the coils from Ciklaiblikci’s disclosure and apply it to the coils of linear motors of Fukuma, IVO Fukagawa, To Tamaki, and Kimura, as it would allow for protections against manufacturing faulty production such as segmentation and cutting of coils/wires during production of the linear head module (Ciklaiblikci, p. 16, ll. 17-25). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as varnish is known to provide a source of electrical insulation, protects against thermal cycling, and provides a more rigid structure to resist against vibrations during mechanism movement.
Claim 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, and further in view of Kanai et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20080309260 A1) hereinafter Kanai.
Regarding claim 8, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above, and Fukuma further discloses the plurality of linear motors is arranged adjacent to each other in a lattice pattern (FIGS. 11 & 12 depict the plurality of linear motors arranged as such, all arranged in a lattice and parallel orientation) such that the number of columns in a first direction perpendicular to the axial direction is a first number (annotated FIG. 12 below depicts the first direction, the linear motors in the first direction having a number of two linear motors) and the number of columns in a second direction perpendicular to the axial direction and the first direction is a second number larger than the first number (annotated FIG. 12 below depicts the second direction, the linear motors in the second direction having a number of four linear motors).
However, all fail to disclose the linear head module further comprises a first fan provided on one side of the plurality of linear motors in the first direction and configured to blow air to the plurality of linear motors from the one side and a second fan provided on another side opposite to the one side in the first direction and configured to blow air to the plurality of linear motors from the another side.
Kanai discloses (Title: Shaft Type Linear Motor, Mounting Head and Component Mounting Device with the Linear Motor, and Position Detection Method for Shaft for Driving the linear Motor) wherein the linear head module (mounting head 4a, ¶140) further comprises:
a first fan (fan 65, ¶140) provided on one side of the plurality of linear motors (FIG. 14A below depicts fans 65 on the left side) in the first direction (X-axis in FIG. 14a) and configured to blow air to the plurality of linear motors from the one side (¶144, “The cooling fans 65 for forcibly passing air between the above-mentioned suction nozzle assemblies 10a and 10b to perform cooling”), and
PNG
media_image11.png
734
520
media_image11.png
Greyscale
a second fan (fan 65, ¶140)
However, Kanai [260] fails to disclose the second fan provided on another side opposite to the one side in the first direction and configured to blow air to the plurality of linear motors from the another side.
Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches of a linear head module that has a plurality of linear motors arranged in a lattice shape, specific to a number in the first and second directions. Kanai discloses of a linear head module that utilizes the use of a plurality of fans, provided across a surface of the module, understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art to forcibly pass air between nozzles of the assembly. Thus, it would have been obvious to POSITA to take the fans of Kanai and provide them to the linear head module of Fukuma, IVO Fukagawa and To Tamaki, to provide cooling for the linear motors (Kanai, ¶140-144).
Furthermore, though Kanai fails to disclose the fan on the opposite side to the first fan, it would have been routine and conventional to provide a fan on another surface, namely the “another” side opposite to the first fan as it would provide cooling over a second surface area accounting for space limitations within the linear head module structure.
Regarding claim 12, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all fail to further disclose an electronic mounting apparatus comprising the linear head module according to claim 1, a transport mechanism configured to transfer a substrate, and moving mechanism configured to move the linear head module with respect to the substrate, the linear head module one which stands on a base.
Kanai discloses (Title: Shaft Type Linear Motor, Mounting Head and Component Mounting Device with the Linear Motor, and Position Detection Method for Shaft for Driving the linear Motor) an electronic component mounting apparatus (XY robots 5, ¶73) comprising:
a linear head module according to claim 1 (detailed above);
a transport mechanism (transferring/holding device 3, ¶73) configured to transfer a substrate (circuit board 2, ¶72); and
a moving mechanism (X-axis section 6b, ¶76) configured to move the linear head module with respect to the substrate, the linear head module standing on a base (mounting device base 16, ¶75).
PNG
media_image12.png
483
720
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches of a linear head module that has a plurality of linear motors arranged in a lattice shape, specific to a number in the first and second directions. Kanai discloses of an electric mounting apparatus that comprises of a linear head module, and transport mechanism, and a moving mechanism. Thus, it would have been obvious to POSITA to take the linear head module of Fukuma, IVO Fukagawa and To Tamaki, and provide it to the apparatus of Kanai as Kanai’s apparatus allows for automated feeding of circuit boards, chip components, and other electrical connectors, achieving efficient manufacturing. (Kanai, ¶70-74). (Also refer to the rejection of claim 8, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 12 in the manner of modifying the electronic component mounting apparatus to encompass fans for cooling).
Claim 9-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, and further in view of Lawler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200036273 A1) hereinafter Lawler.
Regarding claim 9, Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, teaches the linear head module of claim 1, as detailed above, and Fukuma further discloses the linear head module further comprising:
a first member provided on one side of the plurality of linear motors along the shaft axis (guide portion 4, p. 5, ll. 15); and
a second member provided on another side opposite to the one side of the plurality of linear motors along the shaft axis (guide portion 5, p. 5, ll. 15).
However, all fail to disclose the first and second members having an air hole communicating an inner space on one side of the stator along the shaft axis with an outer space of the back yoke with respect to each of the plurality of linear motors.
Lawler discloses (Title: Linear Electromagnetic Machine System) a linear motor (linear electromagnetic machine [LEM] 100, ¶53) wherein a first and second members provided on opposite sides of a linear motor (exit bearing housings 102 and 104, ¶56) having an air hole (features 123-126, ¶56) communicating an inner space on one side of the stator along the shaft axis with an outer space of the back yoke with respect to each of the plurality of linear motors (¶56, “bearing housings 102 and 104 are configured to receive bearing gas from features 123-126, which may include respective ports for receiving respective bearing gas supplies… configured to interface to respective annular gas bearings in bearing interfaces 112 and 114”).
PNG
media_image13.png
454
745
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Fukuma, in view of Fukagawa and To Tamaki, discloses a linear head module comprising of a first and second member, namely guiding portions, each respectively located at opposite ends of a linear motor. Lawler also discloses of a linear motor that comprises of air holes located at each member, located at respective opposite ends to communicate the inside of the motor to the outside. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the bearing gas tube features from Lawler’s disclosure and implement them into the guide portions of Fukuma, IVO Fukagawa and To Tamaki, allowing for the translating shaft to move along an axis with low or near-zero friction during operation, preventing substantial lateral motion off from the axis (Lawler, ¶56). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as providing the gas tubes would maintain air pressure within the motor, reducing energy requirements to achieve greater motion speed and precision.
Regarding claim 10, Kanai, in view of Fukagawa, To Tamaki, and Lawler, teaches the linear head module of claim 9, as detailed above, and Lawler further discloses the linear head module further comprising:
a linear encoder configured to detect a position of the movable element in each of the plurality of linear motors (position sensor 2840, ¶106, “position sensor 2840 may include an encoder read head”) comprising:
a case having an air hole communicating the inner space with the outer space (bearing housing 102 & 104, ¶53; and bearing housing 2400, ¶97) (¶106, “position sensor 2840 may be rigidly mounted to… a bearing housing”); and
an air filter provided in the air hole (¶97, “Passages 2410 may include, for example, … filters”).
PNG
media_image14.png
327
458
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 9, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 10 in the manner of air holes to prevent pressure issues within the motor and allow for low to near-zero friction during operation).
Regarding claim 11, Kanai, in view of Fukagawa, To Tamaki, and Lawler, teaches the linear head module of claim 10, as detailed above, and Lawler further discloses the air filter configured to allow air to pass through and configured to block water (¶97, “Passages 2410 may include, for example,… filters,… ports for removing condensate (e.g., condensed water, oil, or other condensed fluids)”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 9, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 11 in the manner of air holes to prevent pressure issues within the motor and allow for low to near-zero friction during operation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
