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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1-4, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaisse et al. (US 2020/0358346).
Regarding claim 1, Delaisse et al. discloses:
An electromagnetic machine (abstract), comprising:
a frame (R1-R4, Fig 1B);
a stator (St1, para 44) arranged to create a magnetic field (paras 41-48), the stator comprising at least two stator elements (A1, A2, Fig 2) facing each other; and
a linearly movable portion (Am1, Fig 8b, paras 37, 41), including:
at least two rods (Ta1, Ta2, Fig 1b) that are movable along respective drive axes (dual arrow indicating movement in Fig 1A),
each rod being (At1, At2) arranged at one end of the at least two stator elements (A1, A2, Fig 2),
at least one magnetic element (Mn1, Mn2, Fig 2, paras 96-97) associated with the at least two rods (Ta1, Ta2),
the at least one magnetic element (Mn1, Mn2, Fig 2, paras 96-97) being arranged between the two stator elements (A1, A2, Fig 2) and magnetically movable with respect to the at least two stator elements, and
coupling means (At1-At3, Fig 2, para 152) between the at least one magnetic element (Mn1, Mn2) and the rods (Ta1, Ta2).
Delaisse et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, but in different embodiments.
However, as skilled artisan would have readily recognized the benefits of combining the teachings of Delaisse et al. to make applicant’s currently claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Delaisse et al. to make applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above by combining the teachings of Delaisse et al.
The motivation to do so is it would provide a resonant electromagnetic machine that limits the energy losses associated with potential friction and wearing of contacting parts as the mobile armature moves with respect to the stator (para 4).
Regarding claim 2/1, Delaisse et al. discloses wherein each magnetic element comprises at least one pair of alternating poles (paras 69, 91,96,97).
Regarding claim 3/1, Delaisse et al. discloses wherein the at least one magnetic element is at least one permanent magnet (paras 6, 91).
Regarding claim 4/3, Delaisse et al. discloses further comprising at least one spacer arranged between two pairs of poles (para 91 – frame).
Regarding claim 6/1, Delaisse et al. discloses further comprising at least one position return means, associated with at least one rod (paras 7-8,217).
Regarding claim 7/1, Delaisse et al. discloses further comprising means for sealing the stator and/or the movable portion relative to the external environment (paras 139, 197,198).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaisse et al. (US 2020/0358346) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 6184597).
Regarding claim 5/1, Delaisse et al. discloses the invention as discussed above and wherein each stator element comprises a stack of sheet metal plates (Fig 4, para 49).
Delaisse et al. do not explicitly show their stator element comprising at least two teeth.
Yamamoto et al. teaches an apparatus with show their stator element comprising at least two teeth (Fig 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skil in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Delaisse et al. wherein their stator element comprising at least two teeth, as Yamamoto et al. teaches
The motivation to do so would be to provide a linear motor which is capable of lessening the eddy current loss to improve the motor efficiency and of facilitating the manufacturing of the yoke at a lower cost (C2 ll 40-45 of Yamamoto et al.).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaisse et al. (US 2020/0358346) in view of Tan et al. (US 20210276665).
Regarding claim 11/1, Delaisse et al. discloses a mechanical assembly comprising an electromagnetic machine according to claim 1, except at least one effector mounted to at least one of the distal ends of the at least two rods.
Tan et al. teaches a device having at least one effector mounted to at least one of the distal ends of the at least two rods (para 5, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Delaisse et al. to have at least one effector mounted to at least one of the distal ends of the at least two rods, as Tan et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it allows for more direct and accurate flexure control (para 6 of Tan et al.).
Regarding claim 12/11, Delaisse et al. in view of Tan et al. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Delaisse et al. do not teach wherein the at least one effector comprises at least one membrane.
Tan et al. teaches a device wherein the at least one effector comprises at least one membrane (para 5, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Delaisse et al. in view of Tan et al. wherein the at least one effector comprises at least one membrane, as Tan et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it allows for more direct and accurate flexure control (para 6 of Tan et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 13-16 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 8/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the stator comprises at least four stator elements forming two pairs of two stator elements arranged around a longitudinal axis and extending in a circumferential or orthoradial direction relative to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the linearly movable portion comprises four rods forming two pairs of two rods.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 9 and 10 are also allowable for depending on claim 8.
In claim 13/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…A mechanical assembly comprising an electromagnetic machine according to claim 1 extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein: the stator comprises at least four stator elements forming two pairs of stator elements; and the linearly movable portion comprises at least four rods forming two pairs of two rods; the mechanical assembly further comprising at least one effector mounted to the at least one of the distal ends of at least two rods.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 14 and 15 are also allowable for depending on claim 13.
In claim 16/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…A method for operating an electromagnetic machine according to claim 1, wherein: the stator comprises at least four stator elements forming two pairs of stator elements; and the linearly movable portion comprises at least four rods forming at least two pairs of two rods; the method comprising an actuation step phase-shifted between the at least two pairs of two rods.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
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.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834