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 .
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 “a motor (Claim 15)” and the “a coupling part… second ferromagnetic armature… a second actuator (Claim 16)” 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, Line 14, replace “workspace,” with “workspace;”
Page 2, Line 16, replace “case,” with “case;”
Page 2, Line 19, replace “workspace,” with “workspace;”
Page 2, Line 23, replace “case,” with “case; and”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 5, replace “workspace,” with “workspace;”
Claim 1, Line 7, replace “case,” with “case;”
Claim 1, Line 10, replace “workspace,” with “workspace;”
Claim 1, Line 14, replace “case,” with “case; and”
Claim 11, Line 3, replace “its” with “the”
Claim 12, Line 3, replace “its” with “the”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means of a coupling part” in claim 16. Structure is assigned to this element in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-16 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 recites “weakly magnetic material.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “weakly”?
Claim 1 recites “so-called sliding faces.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “so -called”? For purposes of examination, the phrase “so-called sliding faces” is understood to mean “
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the section of the tubular case" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the section of the tubular case" with "a section of the tubular case".
Claim 15 recites “a motor configured to move the actuator.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how this motor would operate to actually move the actuator as no structure or description of operation has been provided within the originally filed disclosure.
Claim 16 recites “a coupling part… a second ferromagnetic armature… and a second actuator.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how these elements would operate to actually drive the coupling part as no structure or description of operation has been provided within the originally filed disclosure.
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)(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, 3, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,996,330 (Hutto).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 6 and 13, Hutto teaches: Claim 1 - a magnetic handling device adapted to handle an object in a workspace, the magnetic handling device comprising: a tubular case (3) made of a non-magnetic or weakly magnetic material, comprising at least two adjacent so-called sliding faces (inner surfaces of tubular case (3)), a first end of the tubular case (3) being open and in communication with the workspace, a ferromagnetic armature (7) slidably arranged in the tubular case (3) according to a longitudinal axis of the tubular case (3), a handling shaft (2) extending through the tubular case (3), the handling shaft (2) being coupled to the ferromagnetic armature (7) so as to be able to slide towards or in the workspace, an actuator (16) arranged outside the tubular case (3), comprising a plurality of magnets (31/31a) forming a magnetic system (31/31a) with the ferromagnetic armature (7), the actuator (16) being configured to make the ferromagnetic armature (7) slide according to the longitudinal axis of the tubular case (2), inner surfaces of the actuator (16) and outer surfaces of the ferromagnetic armature (7) being configured to match with the at least two sliding faces, the ferromagnetic armature (7) being configured to be pressed on the at least two sliding faces of the tubular case (2) by the magnets (31/31a), (Figure 1); Claim 3 – wherein a tool (1) for handling the object is coupled to the handling shaft (2), (Figure 1); Claim 6 – wherein the ferromagnetic armature (7) comprises a one-piece, (Figure 1); Claim 13 – wherein the actuator (16) is in the form of a sleeve (16) arranged all around the tubular case (3) and having an internal section adapted to the section of the tubular case (3), (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H06232237 (Fujita et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 14, Fujita et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a magnetic handling device adapted to handle an object in a workspace, the magnetic handling device comprising: a tubular case (2) made of a non-magnetic or weakly magnetic material, comprising at least two adjacent so-called sliding faces (inner surfaces of tubular case (2)), a first end of the tubular case (2) being open and in communication with the workspace, a ferromagnetic armature (6) slidably arranged in the tubular case (2) according to a longitudinal axis of the tubular case (2), a handling shaft (8) extending through the tubular case (2), the handling shaft (8) being coupled to the ferromagnetic armature (6) so as to be able to slide towards or in the workspace, an actuator (7) arranged outside the tubular case (2), comprising a plurality of magnets (4) forming a magnetic system (4) with the ferromagnetic armature (6), the actuator (7) being configured to make the ferromagnetic armature (6) slide according to the longitudinal axis of the tubular case (2), inner surfaces of the actuator (7) and outer surfaces of the ferromagnetic armature (6) being configured to match with the at least two sliding faces, the ferromagnetic armature (6) being configured to be pressed on the at least two sliding faces of the tubular case (2) by the magnets (4), (Figures 1-6); Claim 4 - wherein the ferromagnetic armature (6) comprises at least two wheels (5) on one face placed on one of the at least two sliding facesthe examiner notes that applicant has generically described the two “sliding faces” and that each of these faces can be any arbitrary surface within the tubular case (2)), (Figures 1-6); Claim 5 – wherein the magnetic system comprises a plurality of magnetic circuits (paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0014] and [0016], of the EPO translation, describe the interactions of the magnets (3 and 4) as forming magnetic circuits), (Figures 1-6); Claim 7 – wherein the ferromagnetic armature (6) comprises a plurality of ferromagnetic parts (3), (Figures 1-6); Claim 13 – wherein the actuator (7) is in the form of a sleeve (7) arranged all around the tubular case (2) and having an internal section adapted to the section of the tubular case (2), (Figures 1-6); Claim 14 – wherein the magnetic system is off-centered according to an axis of the ferromagnetic armature (6) with respect to its centre, (Figures 1-6).
Claim(s) 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0191155 (Scollay).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Scollay teaches: Claim 1 - a magnetic handling device adapted to handle an object in a workspace, the magnetic handling device comprising: a tubular case (680) made of a non-magnetic or weakly magnetic material, comprising at least two adjacent so-called sliding faces (inner surfaces of tubular case (680)), a first end of the tubular case (680) being open and in communication with the workspace, a ferromagnetic armature (670) slidably arranged in the tubular case (680) according to a longitudinal axis of the tubular case (680), a handling shaft (650) extending through the tubular case (680), the handling shaft (650) being coupled to the ferromagnetic armature (670) so as to be able to slide towards or in the workspace, an actuator (660) arranged outside the tubular case (680), comprising a plurality of magnets (665) forming a magnetic system (665) with the ferromagnetic armature (670), the actuator (660) being configured to make the ferromagnetic armature (670) slide according to the longitudinal axis of the tubular case (680), inner surfaces of the actuator (660) and outer surfaces of the ferromagnetic armature (670) being configured to match with the at least two sliding faces, the ferromagnetic armature (670) being configured to be pressed on the at least two sliding faces of the tubular case (680) by the magnets (665), (Figure 6A); Claim 15 – wherein the magnetic handling device further comprises a motor (655) configured to move the actuator (660), (Figure 6A).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,384,791 (Braun).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 14, Braun teaches: Claim 1 - a magnetic handling device adapted to handle an object in a workspace, the magnetic handling device comprising: a tubular case (2) made of a non-magnetic or weakly magnetic material, comprising at least two adjacent so-called sliding faces (inner surfaces of tubular case (2)), a first end of the tubular case (2) being open and in communication with the workspace, a ferromagnetic armature (4) slidably arranged in the tubular case (2) according to a longitudinal axis of the tubular case (2), a handling shaft (25) extending through the tubular case (2), the handling shaft (25) being coupled to the ferromagnetic armature (4) so as to be able to slide towards or in the workspace, an actuator (7) arranged outside the tubular case (2), comprising a plurality of magnets (8) forming a magnetic system (8) with the ferromagnetic armature (4), the actuator (7) being configured to make the ferromagnetic armature (4) slide according to the longitudinal axis of the tubular case (2), inner surfaces of the actuator (7) and outer surfaces of the ferromagnetic armature (4) being configured to match with the at least two sliding faces, the ferromagnetic armature (4) being configured to be pressed on the at least two sliding faces of the tubular case (2) by the magnets (8), (Figures 1-9); Claim 3 – wherein a tool (25) for handling the object is coupled to the handling shaft (25), (Figures 1-9); Claim 4 - wherein the ferromagnetic armature (4) comprises at least two wheels (5) on one face placed on one of the at least two sliding facesthe examiner notes that applicant has generically described the two “sliding faces” and that each of these faces can be any arbitrary surface within the tubular case (2)), (Figures 1-9); Claim 6 – wherein the ferromagnetic armature (4) comprises a one-piece, (Figures 1-9); Claim 11 – wherein the actuator (7) comprises rollers (15) arranged on at least two of its inner surfaces so as to be able to roll on the tubular case (2), (Figures 1-9); Claim 12 - wherein the actuator (7) comprises bearings (15) arranged on at least two of its inner surfaces, so as to be able to slide on the tubular case (2), (Figures 1-9); Claim 14 – wherein the magnetic system is off-centered according to an axis of the ferromagnetic armature (4) with respect to its centre, (Figures 1-9).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,384,791 (Braun).
Regarding Claim 2, Braun teaches the device as described above, but does not teach: wherein a section of the tubular case is square (Claim 2). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed shape (square) is an obvious change in shape as nothing recited produces a significant change and/or result. I.e., the shape of the tubular case being square has not been related to any of the previous structure as recited (of claim 1) which would change the required operation of the previously recited structure, (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,384,791 (Braun) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,781,592 (Harrold).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Braun teaches the device as described above, but does not teach: wherein the ferromagnetic armature is made of soft-iron, low-alloy steel or iron-cobalt (Claim 8); and wherein the magnets are made of neodymium-iron-boron or of samarium-cobalt (Claim 10). However, Harrold teaches: Claims 8 and 10 – wherein it is well known for magnets to be made front soft iron materials such as samarium-cobalt as described in Column 2, Lines 28-60. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Braun to have wherein the ferromagnetic armature is made of soft-iron, low-alloy steel or iron-cobalt (Claim 8); and wherein the magnets are made of neodymium-iron-boron or of samarium-cobalt (Claim 10) as taught by Harrold for the purposes of using magnets made from materials which are easy to find and manufacture.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,384,791 (Braun) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0312716 (Hunter et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Braun teaches the device as described above, but does not teach: wherein the magnets are arranged according to a Halbach matrix (Claim 9). However, Hunter et al. teaches: Claim 9 – magnets ((140) in sleeves (102)) sliding along a tubular case (210), the magnets (140) being in the form of a Halbach matrix (at least paragraph [0056]), (Figures 1A-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Braun to have wherein the magnets are arranged according to a Halbach matrix (Claim 9) as taught by Hunter et al. as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the magnets in a Halbach matrix as taught by Hunter et al.) for another (the magnets of Braun) to obtain the predictable results of having a magnet array which is easy to find and manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. NO NEW MATTER may be provided.
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 Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights