DETAILED ACTION
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 02 December 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-9 were previously pending; claim 10 was added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-10 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 02 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 6-8 of the Remarks) alleges that discusses various features and alleged advantages of the present invention, but makes no specific argument against the prior art.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 9-10 of the Remarks) alleges that Kim does not disclose the grooves and ridges on the slider as recited in claim 1. In support of this allegation, the argument points to figure 4 of Kim. This argument is unpersuasive because figure 4 of Kim represents a second embodiment which was not applied in any of the grounds of rejection. Rather, the grounds of rejection are made over the first embodiment of Kim, shown in figures 1-3, which do show grooves and ridges on the top surface of the slider as recited in the claims.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 11-12 of the Remarks) alleges that Kim does not disclose the slider being formed as a singular component rather than the “separate components, namely the magnetic core 310 and the spacers 110” of Kim. This argument is unpersuasive for multiple reasons. First, the slider being formed as a single, monolithic, component is not recited in the amended claim. The new limitations of claim 1 simply state that the slider includes a core formed of “an electromagnetic steel plate”, it does not require that said plate be the only component forming the slider. Second, a monolithic structure is not disclosed in the application, since the core is disclosed as being formed of multiple laminated steel plates (¶ 0027, 0032 of the specification), in addition to other members (e.g. element 58; fig. 3; ¶ 0032). Thus, the argument is unpersuasive because it is alleging that Kim does not disclose features which are neither recited in the claims nor disclosed in the specification.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101367734 B1), hereinafter referred to as “Kim”, in view of Sugita et al. (US 2014/0054979 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Sugita”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a linear motor (fig. 1-3; ¶ ) for use in a machine tool (this statement of the intended use of the linear motor implies no additional limitations), the linear motor comprising:
a magnet plate [200] including a plurality of magnets [210] arranged side by side in a first direction [B] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0036, 0038);
PNG
media_image1.png
303
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a slider [100] including a plurality of coils [330] arranged side by side in the first direction [B], and configured to slide in the first direction [B] relative to the magnet plate [200] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0036-0037, 0044; the coils can be embedded within or “wound multiple times around each of the magnetic poles (320)”), wherein the slider [100] includes a slider core [300] constituted by an electromagnetic steel plate (¶ 0042), wherein the slider core [300] includes a surface portion [sp] on a side [top] opposite to a side [bottom] facing the magnet plate [200] (fig. 1; ¶ 0046-0047); and
a cooling pipe [510a] provided at the surface portion [sp] (fig. 1; ¶ 0046-0047),
wherein the surface portion [sp] is provided with a plurality of grooves [g] and a plurality of ridges [310] that alternate in the first direction [B] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0037, 0042-0043),
the grooves [g] are each elongated in a second direction [c] that is parallel to a surface of the magnet plate [200] and orthogonal to the first direction [B] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0037, 0042-0043),
the ridges [310] are each elongated in the second direction [c] (fig. 1-2),
the cooling pipe [510a] is routed on the slider [100] so as to wind back and forth through the grooves [g] (fig. 1-2),
each of the ridges [310] has two end portions [ep1,ep2] in the second direction [c] including a first end portion [ep1] on a side along which a bent portion of the cooling pipe [510a] extends (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0046-0047), and
on at least one side in the second direction [c], each of the first end portions [ep1] is entirely located inward of two end faces [ef1,ef2] of the slider core [300] in the second direction [c] (fig. 2), or a portion of each of the first end portions [ep1], excluding a central portion of the first end portion [ep1] in the first direction [c], is located inward of the two end faces [ef1,ef2] of the slider core [300] in the second direction [c] (fig. 2).
Kim does not disclose that the slider core [300] is made from steel.
Sugita discloses a linear motor [100] comprising a slider [2] including a slider core [30] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0041-0047), wherein the slider core [30] is constituted by an electromagnetic steel plate (fig. 2; ¶ 0050).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the slider core of Kim from steel laminations as taught by Sugita, in order to prevent eddy currents thereby reducing stray magnetic fields and leakage magnetic flux in the core. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein on both sides in the second direction [c], each of the first end portions [ep1] is entirely located inward of the two end faces [ef1,ef2] of the slider core [300] in the second direction [c] (fig. 2), or a portion of each of the first end portions [ep1], excluding the central portion of the first end portion [ep1] in the first direction [B], is located inward of the two end faces [ef1,ef2] of the slider core [300] in the second direction [c] (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein bent portions of the cooling pipe [510a] are located outward of the two end faces [ef1,ef2] when viewed in a third direction [A] orthogonal to both the first direction [B] and the second direction [c] (fig. 2; the left- and right-most bent, i.e. horizontal, portions of the cooling pipe are located above and below, respectively, the slider).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein end portions of the cooling pipe [510a] in the second direction [c] overlap end portions of the coil [330] in the second direction [c] when viewed in a third direction [A] orthogonal to both the first direction [B] and the second direction [c] (fig. 2; ¶ 0037; the central horizontal portions of the cooling pipe are directly adjacent to the poles 320 around which the coils, not shown, may be wound).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein a width of the cooling pipe [510a] in the second direction [c] is longer than a width of each of the coils [330] in the second direction [c] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0037; each of the cooling piles extends over the entire width of the slider in the [c] direction, while each coil extends over less than one third of said entire width).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (US 2013/0228415 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Iwasaki”, in view of Kim and Sugita.
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki discloses a machine tool [2] comprising:
a linear motor [5] (fig. 3, 8-9; ¶ 0067); and
a spindle [52] configured to rotatably hold a workpiece [w] or a tool (fig. 3, 8-9; ¶ 0058-0059),
wherein the linear motor [5] is used to move a position of the spindle [52] (¶ 0078).
Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the machine tool of Iwasaki using the linear motor as taught by Kim, in order to improve cooling in the motor thereby reducing the “risk that they may be exposed to problems such as malfunction, breakdown, deformation, and damage when used for a long time” (¶ 0001-0005 of Kim).
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki discloses a machine tool [2] comprising:
a linear motor [5] (fig. 3, 8-9; ¶ 0067); and
a table [18,19] on which a workpiece [w] is placeable (fig. 8-9; ¶ 0058-0059),
wherein the linear motor [5] is used to drive the table [18,19] (¶ 0078-0080).
Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the machine tool of Iwasaki using the linear motor as taught by Kim, in order to improve cooling in the motor thereby reducing the “risk that they may be exposed to problems such as malfunction, breakdown, deformation, and damage when used for a long time” (¶ 0001-0005 of Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki discloses a machine tool [2] comprising:
a linear motor [5] (fig. 3, 8-9; ¶ 0067); and
a loader [18,19] configured to transport a member [w] (fig. 8-9; ¶ 0058-0059),
wherein the linear motor [5] is used to drive the loader [18,19] (¶ 0078-0080).
Kim, in view of Sugita, discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, as stated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the machine tool of Iwasaki using the linear motor as taught by Kim, in order to improve cooling in the motor thereby reducing the “risk that they may be exposed to problems such as malfunction, breakdown, deformation, and damage when used for a long time” (¶ 0001-0005 of Kim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 3 is/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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose a linear motor for use in a machine tool, the linear motor comprising:
a magnet plate including a plurality of magnets arranged side by side in a first direction;
a slider including a plurality of coils arranged side by side in the first direction, and configured to slide in the first direction relative to the magnet plate; and
a cooling pipe provided at a surface portion of the slider on a side opposite to a side facing the magnet plate,
wherein the surface portion is provided with a plurality of grooves and a plurality of ridges that alternate in the first direction,
the grooves are each elongated in a second direction that is parallel to a surface of the magnet plate and orthogonal to the first direction,
the ridges are each elongated in the second direction,
the cooling pipe is routed on the slider so as to wind back and forth through the grooves,
each of the ridges has two end portions in the second direction including a first end portion on a side along which a bent portion of the cooling pipe extends, and
on at least one side in the second direction, each of the first end portions is entirely located inward of two end faces of the slider in the second direction, or a portion of each of the first end portions, excluding a central portion of the first end portion in the first direction, is located inward of the two end faces of the slider in the second direction,
the two end portions of each of the ridges further include a second end portion on a side along which a bent portion of the cooling pipe does not extend, and the second end portions are each located at the same position as one of the two end faces when viewed in a third direction orthogonal to both the first direction and the second direction.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose the linear motor according to claim 1, the two end portions of each of the ridges further include a second end portion on a side along which a bent portion of the cooling pipe does not extend, and the second end portions are each located at the same position as one of the two end faces when viewed in a third direction orthogonal to both the first direction and the second direction.
The prior art discloses devices having both end portions of the ridges being recessed from the sides of the slider in the second direction, see Kim. And, the prior art discloses having both end portions of the ridges being aligned with said sides of the slider. However, while these features are shown separately, there is no teaching of end portions on only one side being located inward of the end face while the other is at the same position as the end face, and no motivation has been found why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these features in the manner recited above. Thus, the claimed invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Chen et al. (US 2016/0118872 A1) discloses a linear motor with a groove for cooling fluid disposed in the upper surface of its mover, wherein bent portions of the groove are spaced inward from the sides of the mover.
Stiesdal (US 2011/0109095 A1) discloses a motor comprising a magnetic core with slots wound with coils and cooling tubes disposed within slots on the side of the magnetic core opposite to the slots.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834