DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2024 and 15 October 2025 have been considered by the examiner. 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 at least one driving portion … comprises at least one flank being configured at least partially circumferential ” (claim 2) and the “intersection” of the axes “ at an oblique angle ” (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. 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. Claim Objections Claims 9-10 & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 9-10, change “ displaceable mounted ” to --- displac ea bl y mounted ---. In claim 19, delete “being”. 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. Claims 2-6, 11-12, 14, 17 & 21-22 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 claim 2, “ wherein the at least one driving portion is configured cylindrically and comprises at least one flank being configured at least partially circumferential ” is indefinite in scope. It is unclear in what sense the “flank” 5---described as “ configured circumferential and extends helical-shaped or spiral-shaped in the axial direction X of the driving element 2” or “closed in itself, for example as a disc” (¶[0065])---is “ at least partially circumferential”. This structure not appear to be described in the specification. Further, “at least one flank being configured at least partially circumferential , or wherein the at least one driving portion is configured gear rack-shaped in a cross-section ” is vague and indefinite and not idiomatic . In claim 3, “ wherein the at least one flank is configured closed in itself … ” is vague and indefinite and not idiomatic . In claim 4, “ threaded bolt-shaped or cylindrical worm-shaped ” is vague and indefinite and not idiomatic . It is unclear what a “threaded bolt” and a “cylindrical worm” shape encompass , as well as the distinction therebetween. In claim 6, “ wherein at least one output element portion of the output element … is configured identically or similarly or complementary to the at least one driving portion of the driving element ” is indefinite relative language. In claim 11 , “ a rotational axis of the driving element and a rotational axis of the output element are spaced apart from each other and intersect at 90° or at an oblique angle ” is unclear. It is unclear how or in what sense the driving element 2 axis and output element 3 axis “intersect” since they are orthogonal to each other, as shown in Fig.1 for example. In claim 12, “ wherein in a view the at least one driving portion comprises a circular contour ” is indefinite and “a thickness of the at least one output element portion being assigned to the at least one driving portion ” is not idiomatic. In claim 14, the feature of “ the first driving portion or the second driving portion is plugged or pressed onto the shaft ” is product-by-process language with indefinite structural scope. In claim 17, “at least partially … gear rack-shaped ” is indefinite. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Various syntax errors exist in the specification. For instance, in the abstract and specification p.1, line 10 & p.2 line 24 , “…for magnetization at least one driving portion … ” should be ---for magnetization of at least one driving portion---. In the specification p.1, line 9 , p.2, lines 22-23, & p.7, line 28 “ a part ” should be ---apart--- and reference to specific claims (p.2, line 15) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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 1-2, 5-6, 11-14 & 16-17 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 1 ) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoller (US 1,337,732). Regarding claim 1 , Stoller teaches a drive arrangement with an output element (shaft/worm) 11/12 for performing an output movement and a driving element (gear wheel) 6 for driving the output element, wherein the driving element 6 and the output element 11/12 are arranged spaced apart from each other in a contactless manner (Fig.1-5) , wherein at least one magnetic unit (magnetizing coil) 20 for generating a magnetic field is coupled to the driving element for magnetiz ation at least one driving portion (teeth 7 with poles 8 & 9) of the driving element (winding gives adjacent teeth opposite polarities; p.1:99-102) , wherein the least one driving portion 7/8/9 is configured to transmit the magnetic field at least partially to the output element 11/12 to drive the output element upon a rotational movement of the driving element (p.1: 19-26 & 58-89; p.2:45-52; Figs.4-5). Regarding claim 2, w herein the at least one driving portion 7/8/9 is configured cylindrically and comprises at least one flank (i.e., tooth 7) being configured at least partially circumferential, or wherein the at least one driving portion is “ configured gear rack-shaped in a cross-section ” [sic] (Figs.4-5). Regarding claim 5, the at least one flank (tooth) comprises a rectangular [or] trapezoida l… contour in a cross-section (Figs.4-5). Regarding claim 6, at least one output element portion (spiral worm) 12 of the output element, being driven by the at least partially transmitted magnetic field, is “ configured identically or similarly or complementary ” [sic] to the at least one driving portion 7/8/9 of the driving element 6” (Figs.1&4-5). Regarding claim 11, the at least one magnetic unit (magnetizing coil) 20 is configured …. at least partially cylindrically, or wherein the at least one magnetic unit comprises … an electromagnet. Regarding claim 12, in a view the at least one driving portion 7/8/9 comprises a circular contour (Fig.4) , wherein the diameter of the at least one driving portion 7/8/9 is at least equal to or greater than a thickness of the at least one output element portion (spiral worm) 12 “ being assigned to the at least one driving portion ” [sic] (Figs.4&5). Regarding claim 13, the driving element 6 comprises a first driving portion (north pole) 8 and a second driving portion (south pole) 9 , 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.5) . Regarding claim 14, the driving element 6 comprises a shaft 5 and wherein the first driving portion 8 or the second driving portion 9 is … integrally formed in one piece with the shaft (Fig.5). Regarding claim 16, a rotational axis of the driving element 6 and a rotational axis of the output element 11/12 are “ spaced apart from each other and intersect at 90° …” [sic] (Figs.4-5). Regarding claim 17, the output element 11/12 is configured “ at least partially spur gear-shaped or gear rack-shaped ” [sic] (i.e., spiral worm gear; Figs.1&4-7). Claim s 1-2, 4-7, 11-14, 16-17 & 19 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Yusuke (JP 2014-147262) . Regarding claim 1, Yusuke teaches a drive arrangement with an output element (ferromagnetic gear) 23/53 for performing an output movement and a driving element (magnetic/worm gear) 33/ 43 for driving the output element (the magnetic gear may be a driving gear and the ferromagnetic gear may be a driven gear; English translation p.6, last par.), wherein the driving element and the output element are arranged spaced apart from each other in a contactless manner (p.3, 4 th full par; Fig.3 ) , wherein at least one magnetic unit (magnet) 34 for generating a magnetic field is coupled to the driving element 33/43 for magnetiz ation at least one driving portion (teeth) 35a of the driving element 33/43 , wherein the least one driving portion 35a is configured to transmit the magnetic field at least partially to the output element 23/53 to drive the output element upon a rotational movement of the driving element (note magnetic force lines; Figs.4&9) . Regarding claim 2, the at least one driving portion 35a is configured cylindrically and comprises at least one flank [i.e., tooth] “being configured at least partially circumferentially” [sic], wherein the at least one driving portion 35a is “ configured gear rack-shaped in a cross-section ” [sic] (i.e., teeth 35a constitute spur or helical gear; p.5, 9 th par). Regarding claim 4, the at least one driving portion is “ configured threaded bolt-shaped or cylindrical worm-shaped ” [sic] (i.e., teeth 35a form worm wheel 33 which may constitute spur or helical gear; p.5, 9 th par). Regarding claim 5, the at least one flank (tooth) comprises a rectangular, trapezoidal or triangular contour i n a cross-section (Figs.3-4). Regarding claim 6, at least one output element portion (ferromagnetic gear) 23/53 of the output element, being driven by the at least partially transmitted magnetic field, is “ configured identically or similarly or complementary to the at least one driving portion of the driving element [magnetic/worm gear 33/43]” [sic] (Fig.3). Regarding claim 7, the output element (ferromagnetic gear) 23/53 is “ configured as a spur wheel and comprises at least one flank or a plurality of flanks being arranged around an outer circumference of the output element ” [sic] (i.e., worm 23 comprise teeth 23a formed at a predetermined pitch in the axial direction). Regarding claim 11, the at least one magnetic unit (magnet) 34 is “ configured … at least partially cylindrically ” [sic], or wherein the at least one magnetic unit 34 comprises a permanent magnet . Regarding claim 12, wherein in a n [axial] view the at least one driving portion (magnetic/worm gear) 33/43 comprises a circular contour (Figs.1&3), wherein the diameter of the at least one driving portion 33/34 is at least equal to or greater than a thickness of the at least one output element portion (ferromagnetic gear) 23/53 “ being assigned ” [sic] to the at least one driving portion (Fig.9). Regarding claim 13, the driving element (magnetic/worm gear) 33/43 comprises a first driving portion 35a and a second driving portion 35a , wherein the first driving portion and the second driving portion are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the driving element (Figs.4 - 9). Regarding claim 14, the driving element (magnetic/worm gear) 33/43 comprises a shaft 31 and wherein the first driving portion 35a or the second driving portion 35a is “ plugged or pressed ” [sic] onto the shaft, or is integrally formed in one piece with the shaft (Fig.1) . Regarding claim 16, a rotational axis of the driving element and a rotational axis of the output element are “ spaced apart from each other and intersect at 90° or at an oblique angle ” [sic] (i.e., the axes are orthogonal; Figs.1-4). Regarding claim 17, the output element (ferromagnetic gear) 23/53 is “ configured at least partially spur gear-shaped or gear rack-shaped ” [sic] (i.e., worm 23 comprise teeth 23a formed at a predetermined pitch in the axial direction). Regarding claim 19, the driving element (magnetic/worm gear) 33/43 is “ arranged at least partially between ” [sic] the output element (ferromagnetic gear) 23/53 and the at least one magnetic unit (magnet) 34 (Fig.4). Claim s 1- 8 , 1 0 -1 3 , 15, 17 -18 & 21 -22 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 1 ) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rhinefrank et al. (US Pat.Pub.2009/0251258). Regarding claim 1, Rhinefrank teaches a drive arrangement with an output element ( screw ) 1360 for performing an output movement and a driving element ( magnet assembly) 1370 for driving the output element, wherein the driving element and the output element are arranged spaced apart from each other in a contactless manner (Fig.1 3 A ) , wherein at least one magnetic unit ( ring magnet ) 1374 for generating a magnetic field is coupled to the driving element for magnetiz ation [of] at least one driving portion ( pole shoes) 1372 of the driving element ( ¶ [0099] -¶[0101] ) , wherein the least one driving portion 1372 is configured to transmit the magnetic field at least partially to the output element 1360 to drive the output element upon a rotational movement of the driving element ( i.e., when relative linear motion occurs between float 1320 and spar 1310 (e.g., when a wave exerts a force on float 1320), magnet assembly 1370 moves in a linear direction relative to center screw 1360. This causes a differential in magnetic flux between center screw 1360 and pole shoes 1372 . This differential flux can result in transaxial forces which pull on screw 1360, causing it to rotate back into alignment with pole shoes 1372 . This can create relative rotary motion between center screw 1360 and magnet assembly 1370 ; ¶[0101]; Figs.13A-13C). Regarding claim 2, w herein the at least one driving portion 1372 is configured cylindrically and comprises at least one flank (t hread ) 1378 being configured at least partially circumferential, or wherein the at least one driving portion is “ configured gear rack-shaped in a cross-section ” [sic] (Fig. 13C ). Regarding claim 3, the at least one flank 1378 is configured closed in itself, or extends helical-shaped or spiral-shaped in an axial direction (X) of the driving element (¶[0099]; Fig.13C). Regarding claim 4, the at least one driving portion 1372 is “ configured threaded bolt-shaped or cylindrical worm-shaped ” [sic] (i.e., thread/flank 1378; Fig.13C). Regarding claim 5, the at least one flank 1378 comprises a rectangular, trapezoidal or triangular contour i n a cross-section and is surrounded at least partially by a filler (buoyant) material 1323 (Fig.13C). Regarding claim 6, at least one output element portion ( thread ) 1376 of the output element 1360 , being driven by the at least partially transmitted magnetic field, is “ configured identically or similarly or complementary to ” [sic] the at least one driving portion 1372 of the driving element 1370 (Fig s . 1 3 A-C ). Regarding claim 7, the output element is “ configured as a spur wheel and comprises at least one flank or a plurality of flanks being arranged around an outer circumference of the output element ” [sic] (i.e., threads 1376; Fig.13B ). Regarding claim 8, the driving element (magnet assembly) 1370 or at least the at least one driving portion is arranged in a housing (defined by float 1320) , wherein the housing is enclosed or sealed towards at least the output element (screw) 1360 , or wherein a partition wall (spar) 1310 is arranged between the driving element and the output element (Fig.13B) . Regarding claim 10, the driving element 1370 is displaceable[y] mounted with reference to the output element (screw) 1360… for adjusting the at least partially transmitted magnetic field (i.e., w hen relative linear motion occurs between float 1320 and spar 1310 … magnet assembly 1370 moves in a linear direction relative to center screw 1360. This causes a differential in magnetic flux between center screw 1360 and pole shoes 1372 . This differential flux can result in transaxial forces which pull on screw 1360, causing it to rotate back into alignment with pole shoes 1372 . This can create relative rotary motion between center screw 1360 and magnet assembly 1370 ; ¶[0101]). Regarding claim 11, the at least one magnetic unit 1374 is “ configured … at least partially cylindrically ” [sic], or wherein the at least one magnetic unit comprises a permanent magnet . Regarding claim 12, wherein in a n [axial] view the at least one driving portion 1372 comprises a circular contour (Fig.13 C ), wherein the diameter of the at least one driving portion 1372 is at least equal to or greater than a thickness of the at least one output element portion ( thread ) 1376 “ being assigned ” [sic] to the at least one driving portion (Fig. 13B ). Regarding claim 13, the driving element (magnet assembly) 1370 comprises a first driving portion 1372 and a second driving portion 1372 , 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 .13B ). Regarding claim 15, a filler material 1323 (buoyant material; ¶[0063]; ¶[0097]) is arranged between the first driving portion 1372 and the second driving portion 1372 (Fig.13C) . Regarding claim 17, the output element 1360 is “ configured at least partially spur gear-shaped or gear rack-shaped ” [sic] (i.e., center screw with threads 1376; Fig.13B). Regarding claim 18, though Rhinefrank does not explicitly teach the claimed gap range, t he driving element 1370 and the output element 1360 are arranged spaced apart from each other in a contactless manner forming a gap , with the gap being about 6mm (¶[0142]). Per MPEP 2131.03, a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range. Regarding claim 21, though Rhinefrank does not explicitly teach the pitch angle of the at least one flank 1378 has the claimed range, Fig.13C shows a specific example where the pitch angle lies within the claimed range of 0.1º-50º. Per MPEP 2131.03, a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range. It is noted that Rhinefrank also teaches the pitch and spacing characteristics can be chosen based on a particular application, to amplify or reduce the angular speed of turning center screw (¶ [0099] ) . Regarding claim 22, the filler material 1323 is non-magnetizable material (i.e. , a buoyant material; ¶[0063]; ¶[0097]). 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Yusuke or Rhinefrank as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Finkle et al. (US 8,097,993). None of Stoller or Yusuke teach th e ir respective magnetic unit (magnet) is displaceab ly mounted with reference to the driving element for at least adjusting a magnetic field strength of the magnetic field. But, Finkle teaches a n electric motor or generator including a driving element (rotor) 12a with a magnetic unit (magnet) 16 inside each pole piece that is displaceably mounted with reference to the driving element, to thereby either strengthen or weaken the resulting magnetic field (abstract; Figs.6A-6C). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to displaceably mount the magnetic unit of Stoller or Yusuke with reference to the driving element since Finkle teaches this would have provided means to either strengthen or weaken the magnetic field. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Stoller, Yusuke or Rhinefrank as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Trangbaek et al. (US 9,628,001) . Stoller, Yusuke or Rhinefrank , alone or in combination, do not teach “a t 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 a t 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 measure s 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 any of Stoller, Yusuke or Rhinefrank with a t 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. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2029 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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