Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/535,123

LINEAR MOTOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Examiner
SETZER, NICHOLAS LEE
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ta Instruments-Waters LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
26 granted / 41 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
75
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 41 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on December 11, 2023. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the test specimen of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Air Bushing Linear Motor for Testing Device. 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 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, and 19 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 3 and 13 recites, “a vertical axis of movement”, it is unclear what “vertical” is relative to in this context. It is typical in the art to use terms like axial, circumferential, and radial to denote direction. In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the vertical axis of movement is interpreted to mean, “axial axis” I recommend rewriting the vertical axis of movement as stated above. Claim 9 and 19 recites, “a compliant manner”, it is unclear what a “compliant manner” imparts to “some movement between the air bushing and the frame body”. A compliant manner would imply that the limitation is common in the art enough to have regulations/rules. Making the limitation a self-omission for lack of novelty. In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the compliant manner is interpreted to mean, “a manner” I recommend rewriting the compliant manner as stated above. Claims 5 and 15 recites the limitation "the magnetic core " in the first line of each claim respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(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) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated HAYNES (US 20190356200 A1). Regarding claim 1, HAYNES teaches: A testing device [0003] comprising: a linear motor [abstract] including a stator assembly(Fig 2; 14), wherein the stator assembly(Fig 2; 14) includes a first coil sub-assembly and a second coil sub-assembly[0077]; an armature (Fig 2; 18)mechanically coupleable to a test specimen (Fig 2; 33)[0074] configured to be moved relative to the stator assembly (Fig 2; 14) by operation of the linear motor[0067], wherein the armature (Fig 2; 18) is located and extends between the first coil sub-assembly and the second coil sub-assembly(coils are located in the stator [0077], which lies radially outside the armature); and a suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34) configured to facilitate movement of the armature (Fig 2; 18)relative to the stator assembly(Fig 2; 14) along an axis of movement (Fig 1; 20) without physically touching the armature (Fig 2; 18)[0036] during movement and without sliding or rolling contact between the armature (Fig 2; 18)and the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34)(a non-contact seal is provided by the fluid bearing 35[0089]), wherein the linear motor and the suspension system (Fig 2; 11/34)are configured to provide frictionless suspension of the armature (Fig 2; 18)and movement of the armature(Fig 2; 18)(frictionless suspension [0069]). PNG media_image1.png 625 289 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 652 447 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 1: wherein the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34) includes at least one air bushing (Fig 2; 35)( various embodiments of HAYNES have air bushing external and internal of the armature 18) that is configured to allow movement of the armature (Fig 2; 18)with respect to the suspension system (Fig 2; 11/34) without sliding or rolling contact between the armature and the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34)[0089]. Regarding claim 3, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 1: wherein the axis of movement (Fig 1; 20)is a vertical axis of movement[0076]. Regarding claim 4, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 1: wherein each of the first coil sub-assembly and the second coil sub-assembly include a magnetic core(forms a magnetic circuit [abstract]), the magnetic core each having a plurality of poles upon which windings are wrapped(HAYNES describes a plurality of coils wrapped in slots [0040]). Regarding claim 5, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 1: wherein the magnetic core is made of electrical steel(carries by magnetically permeable material [0040]). Regarding claim 6, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 1: wherein the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34) includes a frame body (Fig 2; 11) having a first opening (Fig 2; 51)extending along a first axis that is parallel to the axis of movement(Fig 1; 20), wherein the at least one air bushing(Fig 2; 35) is located within the first opening(Fig 2; 51), and wherein the armature (Fig 2; 18) includes a first air bushing shaft(the armature 18 is axially protruding into the opening 51, which can be interpreted as a bushing shaft) extending within the first opening(Fig 2; 51). Regarding claim 7, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 6: wherein the at least one air bushing (Fig 11; 35) includes a first air bushing(Fig 11; 35a) located proximate a first end of the first opening (Fig 11; 51)and a second air bushing (Fig 11; 35b)located proximate a second end of the first opening(Fig 11; 51)(Fig 11 shos another embodiment of HAYNES with two air bushings 35a/35b located at the proximate of opening 51)[0085]. PNG media_image3.png 764 389 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 6: wherein the at least one air bushing(Fig 11; 35a/b) is installed within the first opening (Fig 11; 51)of the frame body (Fig 11; 11) in a compliant manner such that some movement between the air bushing (Fig 11; 35a/b)and the frame body (Fig 2; 11)is permitted(the armature 18 moves between the fluid bearing 35a/b and frame body 11). Regarding claim 10, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 6: wherein the at least one air bushing(Fig 11; 22) is removably attached within the first opening (Fig 11; 51) of the frame body (Fig 11; 11)with an interference fit. The Examiner points out the limitation of an interference fit in claim 10, is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113 Regarding claim 11, HAYNES teaches: A linear motor [abstract] comprising: a stator assembly (Fig 2; 14) configured to receive power, wherein the stator assembly(Fig 2; 14) includes a first coil sub-assembly and a second coil sub-assembly[0077]; an armature (Fig 2; 18)proximate the stator assembly (Fig 2; 14) and configured to be moved relative to the stator assembly when the stator assembly receives power[0067], wherein the armature (Fig 2; 18) is located and extends between the first coil sub-assembly and the second coil sub-assembly(coils are located in the stator [0077], which lies radially outside the armature); and a suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34) configured to facilitate movement of the armature (Fig 2; 18)relative to the stator assembly(Fig 2; 14) along an axis of movement (Fig 1; 20) without physically touching the armature (Fig 2; 18)[0036] during movement and without sliding or rolling contact between the armature (Fig 2; 18)and the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34)(a non-contact seal is provided by the fluid bearing 35[0089]), wherein the linear motor and the suspension system (Fig 2; 11/34)are configured to provide frictionless suspension of the armature (Fig 2; 18)and vertical movement of the armature(Fig 2; 18)(frictionless suspension [0069]). Regarding claim 12, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 11: wherein the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34) includes at least one air bushing (Fig 2; 35)( various embodiments of HAYNES have air bushing external and internal of the armature 18) that is configured to allow movement of the armature (Fig 2; 18)with respect to the suspension system (Fig 2; 11/34) without sliding or rolling contact between the armature and the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34)[0089]. Regarding claim 13, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 11: wherein the axis of movement (Fig 1; 20)is a vertical axis of movement[0076]. Regarding claim 14, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 11: wherein each of the first coil sub-assembly and the second coil sub-assembly include a magnetic core(forms a magnetic circuit [abstract]), the magnetic core each having a plurality of poles upon which windings are wrapped(HAYNES describes a plurality of coils wrapped in slots [0040]). Regarding claim 15, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 11: wherein the magnetic core is made of electrical steel(carries by magnetically permeable material [0040]). Regarding claim 16, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 11: wherein the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34) includes a frame body (Fig 2; 11) having a first opening (Fig 2; 51)extending along a first axis that is parallel to the axis of movement(Fig 1; 20), wherein the at least one air bushing(Fig 2; 35) is located within the first opening(Fig 2; 51), and wherein the armature (Fig 2; 18) includes a first air bushing shaft(the armature 18 is axially protruding into the opening 51, which can be interpreted as a bushing shaft) extending within the first opening(Fig 2; 51). Regarding claim 17, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 16: wherein the at least one air bushing (Fig 11; 35) includes a first air bushing(Fig 11; 35a) located proximate a first end of the first opening (Fig 11; 51)and a second air bushing (Fig 11; 35b)located proximate a second end of the first opening(Fig 11; 51)(Fig 11 shos another embodiment of HAYNES with two air bushings 35a/35b located at the proximate of opening 51)[0085]. Regarding claim 19, HAYNES teaches the linear motor of claim 16: wherein the at least one air bushing(Fig 11; 35a/b) is installed within the first opening (Fig 11; 51)of the frame body (Fig 11; 11) in a compliant manner such that some movement between the air bushing (Fig 11; 35a/b)and the frame body (Fig 2; 11)is permitted(the armature 18 moves between the fluid bearing 35a/b and frame body 11). Regarding claim 20, HAYNES teaches a method comprising; the testing device of claim 1: receiving power by the stator assembly(Fig 2; 14); moving the armature (Fig 2; 18) relative to the stator assembly (Fig 2; 14) back and forth along a vertical axis (Fig 1; 20) of movement after the receiving power by the stator assembly(Fig 2; 14)[0067]; suspending the armature(Fig 2; 18) with the linear motor [abstract] and suspension in a frictionless manner(a non-contact seal is provided by the fluid bearing 35[0089]); and supporting the armature(Fig 2; 18) with the suspension system (Fig 2; 11/34) without physically touching the armature (Fig 2; 18) during the moving and without sliding or rolling contact between the armature (Fig 2; 18) and the suspension system(Fig 2; 11/34)[0089]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYNES (US 20190356200 A1) in view of FLISIKOWSKI (US 4618789 A). In regards to claim 8, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 7. HAYNES does not teach: wherein the frame body includes a second opening extending along a second axis that is parallel to the axis of movement, and wherein the armature includes a second air bushing shaft extending within the second opening, wherein the second opening includes a third air bushing located proximate a first end of the second opening and a fourth air bushing located proximate a second end of the second opening. FLISIKOWSKI teaches: wherein the frame body (Fig 2; 15) includes a second opening (Fig 2; 21) extending along a second axis that is parallel to the axis of movement(axial), and wherein the armature (Fig 2; 23)includes a second air bushing shaft(Fig 2; 29) extending within the second opening(Fig 2; 21), wherein the second opening (Fig 2; 21)includes a third air bushing (Fig 2; 31)located proximate a first end (Fig 2; 13)of the second opening (Fig 2; 21)and a fourth air bushing(Fig 2; 31) located proximate a second end (Fig 2; 13)of the second opening(Fig 2; 21)[Col 2; ln 55-59](Fig 1 shows the use of multiple shafts 29 with bushings at each proximate end). PNG media_image4.png 329 667 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 423 838 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HAYNES by using the second opening, airbrushing shaft, proximate air bushings taught by FLISIKOWSKI in order to provide multiple shafts, thus better stabilizing and distributing the force applied. Additionally, the Applicant should note HAYNES discloses the claimed invention except for duplicate opening, shaft, and proximate air bushings . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate these parts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In regards to claim 18, HAYNES teaches the testing device of claim 17. HAYNES does not teach: wherein the frame body includes a second opening extending along a second axis that is parallel to the axis of movement, and wherein the armature includes a second air bushing shaft extending within the second opening, wherein the second opening includes a third air bushing located proximate a first end of the second opening and a fourth air bushing located proximate a second end of the second opening. FLISIKOWSKI teaches: wherein the frame body (Fig 2; 15) includes a second opening (Fig 2; 21) extending along a second axis that is parallel to the axis of movement(axial), and wherein the armature (Fig 2; 23)includes a second air bushing shaft(Fig 2; 29) extending within the second opening(Fig 2; 21), wherein the second opening (Fig 2; 21)includes a third air bushing (Fig 2; 31)located proximate a first end (Fig 2; 13)of the second opening (Fig 2; 21)and a fourth air bushing(Fig 2; 31) located proximate a second end (Fig 2; 13)of the second opening(Fig 2; 21)[Col 2; ln 55-59](Fig 1 shows the use of multiple shafts 29 with bushings at each proximate end). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HAYNES by using the second opening, airbrushing shaft, proximate air bushings taught by FLISIKOWSKI in order to provide multiple shafts, thus better stabilizing and distributing the force applied. Additionally, the Applicant should note HAYNES discloses the claimed invention except for duplicate opening, shaft, and proximate air bushings . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate these parts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm EST. 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 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. /N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589880
ROTOR, AND PROPELLER DRIVING DEVICE AND AIRCRAFT USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592605
COOLING SYSTEM FOR DRIVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580436
STATOR ASSEMBLY FOR AN ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573895
ROTOR PUNCHING SHEET, MOTOR ROTOR, MOTOR AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558707
TRANSDUCER AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 41 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month