DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to. On line 6, insert –at-- before “least”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 7, insert –at-- before “least”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-14 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huff (US 3,400,287).
Regarding claim 1, Huff teaches a drive arrangement with an output element 28 for performing an output movement and a driving element (disc) 20 for driving the output (driven) element 28,
wherein the driving element 20 and the output element 28 are arranged spaced apart from each other in a contactless (i.e., frictionless) manner (c.1:52-55 & 59-61),
wherein at least one magnetic unit (permanent magnet) 30 for generating a magnetic field is coupled to the driving element 20 for magnetization of at least one driving portion (tooth tip) 38 of the driving element 20 (Fig.3),
wherein the [at] least one driving portion 38 is configured to transmit the magnetic field at least partially to the output element 28 to drive the output element upon a rotational movement of the driving element 20, and
wherein the driving element 20 is arranged at least partially between the output element 28 and the at least one magnetic unit 30 (Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the at least one driving portion (tooth tip) 38 is cylindrical and comprises at least one flank that extends in a circumferential direction in the sense that the driving element 20 is a "toothed disc" with tooth tips 38 extending circumferentially around the disc (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 5, the at least one flank comprises a…triangular contour in a cross-section (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 6, the at least one output element portion of the output element 28 has a tooth or flank profile 40 corresponding to the flank or tooth profile 38 of the at least one driving portion of the driving element 20 (Figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 7, the output element 28 is configured as a spur wheel and comprises at least one flank or a plurality of flanks (tooth tips) 38 being arranged around an outer circumference of the output element (Figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 11, the at least one magnetic unit 30 is configured C-shaped, U-shaped..., or wherein the at least one magnetic unit comprises a permanent magnet or electro-magnet (c.2:39-40; c.3:3-5).
Regarding claim 12, wherein in an axial view, the at least one driving portion comprises a circular contour, wherein the diameter of the at least one driving portion is at least equal to or greater than a thickness of a correspond output element portion 28 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 13, the driving element 20 comprises a first driving portion (motor) 12 and a second driving portion (disc) 20, wherein the first driving portion and the second driving portion are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the driving element (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 14, the driving element 20 comprises a shaft 16 and wherein the first driving portion 12 or the second driving portion 30 is plugged or pressed onto the shaft, or is integrally formed in one piece with the shaft (Figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 17, the output element 28 comprises gear-rack-type teeth 40 extending along at least a portion of the output element (Figs.1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5, 15 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff as applied to claims 2 & 13 above, respectively, further in view of Bouwer et al. (US 5,456,134).
Huff does not teach at least one flank surrounded at least partially by a filler material (alternative, claim 5) or a filler material arranged between the first driving portion and the second driving portion (claim 15).
But, Bouwer teaches a magnetic transmission apparatus including a filler material 221 arranged between tips 25 of a driving portion (spindle) 3 such that is surrounds at least partially the flanks thereof so that the driving portion has a plane, circular-cylindrical outer wall 27 (c.4:32-44; Fig.2B).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide at least one flank surrounded at least partially by a filler material and a filler material arranged between the first driving portion and the second driving portion of Huff since Bouwer teaches this would have provided a plane, circular-cylindrical driving portion.
Regarding claim 22, Bouwer teaches the filler material 221 is a non-magnetizable material, e.g., epoxy moulding resin (c.4:39-40).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rhinefrank et al. (US Pat.Pub.2009/0251258).
Huff does not teach the driving element or at least the at least one driving portion is arranged in a housing, wherein the housing is enclosed or sealed towards at least the output element, or wherein a partition wall is arranged between the driving element and the output element.
But, Okawa teaches a magnetic coupler apparatus comprising a driving element 2A and an output element 3A, wherein a partition wall (pipe) 20A is arranged between the driving element and the output element to prevent foreign matters from adhering to the threaded groove of the rod-shaped member 2A (c.11:1-4; Fig.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Huff with a partition wall is arranged between the driving element and the output element since Okawa teaches this would have prevent foreign matters from adhering to the grooves of the driving element.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Henderson et al. (US 6,411,001).
Huff does not further teach the driving element is displaceably mounted with reference to the output element or with reference to the at least one magnetic unit for adjusting the at least partially transmitted magnetic field.
But, Henderson teaches a variable ratio magnetic drive including a driving element 20/22 displaceably mounted with reference to an output element 40 along the direction of arrow 15 to vary the amount of rotary power transmission (c.5:67-c.6:4; Fig.3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to displaceably mount Huff’s driving element with reference to the output element since Henderson teaches this would have allowed variation of the amount of rotary power transmission.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baermann (US 3,814,962).
Huff does not teach a rotational axis of the driving element and a rotational axis of the output element are arranged relative to each other at a 90 angle or at an oblique angle.
But, Baermann teaches a magnetic worm gear comprising a driving element A and an output element B where the rotational axis 12 of the driving element and a rotational axis 32 of the output element are arranged relative to each other at a 90 angle to provide a magnetic worm drive that drives the worm wheel by magnetic repulsion (c.1:36-47; c.3:7-10; Fig.1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to arrange Huff’s driving element rotational axis and the output element rotational axis at a 90 angle relative to each other since Baermann teaches this would have provided a magnetic worm drive that drives a worm wheel by magnetic repulsion.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff.
Regarding claim 18, Huff's driving element 20 and output element 28 are arranged spaced apart from each other in a contactless manner forming a gap with “minimum spacing” to reduce the air gap to the least possible dimensions (c.2:42-50; Figs.1-3), but the size of the gap is not described specifically as “being from 0.001mm to 50mm wide at a narrowest point” between the at least one driving portion and the output element.
But, this would have been an obvious matter of engineering design before the effective filing date since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are met (in this case, Huff’s disclosure that the gap is reduced to the least possible dimensions), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Trangbaek et al. (US 9,628,001).
Huff does not teach “at least one sensor unit is configured for detecting at least a magnetic field strength or a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field between the at least one magnetic unit and the at least one driving portion or between the at least one driving portion and the output element.”
But, Trangbaek teaches a magnetic lead screw (MLS) actuator including a driving element (rotor screw) 50 with a magnetic driving portion (helical rotor magnets) 54 that drives an output element (translator frame) 42 with translator magnets 44, and further including at least one sensor unit 312/412 configured for detecting at least a magnetic field strength or a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field between the at least one driving portion 54 and the output element 42 (Figs.2-4). The sensor measures magnetic flux in the MLS which can be used in determining the relative displacement of the MLS for use in determining and controlling the linear force exerted by the MLS (abstract; c.4:37-41).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Huff with at least one sensor unit is configured for detecting at least a magnetic field strength or a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field between the at least one magnetic unit and the at least one driving portion or between the at least one driving portion and the output element since Trangbaek teaches such a sensor unit would have been desirable for determining the relative displacement and for use in determining and controlling the linear force exerted by the drive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9, 19 & 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach the claimed drive arrangement including, inter alia, “wherein the at least one flank forms a continuous annular surface around the at least one driving portion, or extends helically or spirally along an axial direction of the driving element” (claim 3); or
“the at least one driving portion comprises a helical thread profile forming a worm- gear-type cylindrical driving body” (claim 4); or
“the at least one magnetic unit is displaceably mounted with reference to the driving element for at least adjusting a magnetic field strength of the magnetic field” (claim 9); or
“the driving element is configured to be rotationally driven at two ends being arranged diametrically opposed” (claim 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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