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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/4/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 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.
Re claim 1 “at the armature, a torque is exerted as a result of a non-axisymmetric quality of said magnetic field in at least one portion of the apparatus for at least some portion of the time which said armature spends within said apparatus” is indefinite.
The specification discloses a non-axisymmetric quality of the magnetic field of the electromagnetic coil 1 is caused by:
a shim 3 inserted in a circumferential portion between the coil and the barrel 4 and providing the armature 2 with sections of magnetic material removed or making the barrel 4 larger than the armature 2 diameter (figs 2-6c & 15-20, pg 9, [0028]);
in addition to the electromagnetic coil 1 providing radial coil 12 (fig 21, pg 16, [0054-0055]); and
mentions three other structures to cause a non-axisymmetric quality of the magnetic field (pg 16, [0056]), but does not disclose specific structural details with respect to these structures and it is not clear how they would be configured.
The claim limitation is indefinite since:
it does not recite any structural limitations (shim, radial coil, armature w/ sections removed, etc.) for producing a non-axisymmetric quality electromagnetic field; and
it will cover any other electromagnetic coil/armature configuration that has a non-axisymmetric quality that is not disclosed by applicant.
Claims 2-12 are rejected since they depend on claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vjacheslavovich (RU2258885, “Vjacheslavovich” using machine translation).
Re claim 1, Vjacheslavovich discloses an apparatus comprising:
a) one or more of an electromagnetic coil 3 which may impart a linear accelerating force and/or a rotational torque onto an armature 2 by means of an electromagnetic field (figs 1-2, [0018-0020]); and
b) a force, or a superposition of forces, is exerted upon the armature 2 differentially depending upon its material properties, and/or its position within the electromagnetic field generated by the apparatus (figs 1-5, [0018]); and
c) at the armature 2, a torque is exerted as a result of a non-axisymmetric quality of said magnetic field in at least one portion of the apparatus for at least some portion of the time which said armature spends within said apparatus (figs 1-5, [0018-0020], recess 6 & 7 in magnetic circuit 4 & 2 cause non-axisymmetric quality; alternatively since Vjacheslavovich discloses all the claimed structure (coil & armature w/o helical ribs or grooves) & exerts a torque on the armature it is capable of providing a non-axisymmetric quality magnetic field); and
d) an external surface of said armature 2 which lacks helical groove or helical rib features (figs 1-2).
Re claim 2, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the armature 2 is non-axisymmetric in its physical shape, material properties, electrical properties, or magnetic properties (figs 1-2, 2 is non-axisymmetric in shape by recesses 7 in a similar manner as applicants fig 16); and/or the electromagnetic field generated by the electromagnetic coil 3 is essentially non-axisymmetric in intensity (figs 1-5, 4 w/ recesses 6 causes non-axisymmetric in intensity).
Re claim 4, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the armature 2 lacks aerodynamic fins or spiral groove features (fig 1-2).
Re claim 5, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the magnetic field is generated by three or more coils 3 (fig 1).
Re claim 6, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the armature 2 is constructed primarily from a ferromagnetic material ([0004]).
Re claim 8, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the electromagnetic coil 3 surrounds a barrel 1 fashioned from non-magnetic material (fig 1, [0004] & [0018]), and within said barrel 1 there exists an internal bore through which the armature 2 may pass (figs 1-2), and when the armature 2 is positioned within said internal bore (figs 1-2), the cross section of the internal bore consists of less than 90% by area of a material which interacts with the electromagnetic field of the apparatus (fig 2, due to 6 & 7).
Re claim 9, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses a cross section of the armature 2 does not substantially change in shape along an axis parallel to its linear acceleration (figs 1-2).
Re claim 10, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the electromagnetic coil(s) 3 are switched on or off by a control system in response to the armature's angular position (fig 1, [0004] & [0018], 5 position sensor so capable of sensing angular position ).
Re claim 12, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses the angular position of the armature 2 is provided by electrical, optical, mechanical, radio frequency, or magnetic signals generated by the armature 2 as it passes through a barrel 1 of the apparatus (fig 1, [0018], using 5 detects at least magnetic signals).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huse (US1985254, “Huse”).
Re claim 1, Huse discloses an apparatus comprising:
a) one or more of an electromagnetic coil 13 which may impart a linear accelerating force and/or a rotational torque onto an armature 16 by means of an electromagnetic field (figs 1-4, pg 1, lns 44-49 & pg 2, lns 22-44); and
b) a force, or a superposition of forces, is exerted upon the armature 16 differentially depending upon its material properties, and/or its position within the electromagnetic field generated by the apparatus (figs 1-4, pg 2, lns 22-44); and
c) at the armature 16, a torque is exerted as a result of a non-axisymmetric quality of said magnetic field in at least one portion of the apparatus for at least some portion of the time which said armature 16 spends within said apparatus (figs 1-4, pg 2, lns 22-44, non-axisymmetric caused by coil spiral shape; alternatively since Huse discloses all the claimed structure (coil & armature w/o helical ribs or grooves) & exerts a torque on the armature it is capable of providing a non-axisymmetric quality magnetic field); and
d) an external surface of said armature 16 which lacks helical groove or helical rib features (figs 1 & 3-4).
Re claim 7, Huse discloses claim 1 and further discloses the armature 16 is constructed primarily from an electrically conductive material within which a transitory electrical current is induced while the armature 16 is within the apparatus (figs 3-4, pg 2, lns 22-44), and said electrical current creates a magnetic field which interacts with the electromagnetic field generated by the apparatus (figs 3-4, pg 2, lns 22-44, squirrel cage structure inherently forms magnetic field in response to electromagnetic field of 13).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vjacheslavovich in view of Lesellier et al. (FR3033880, “Lesellier”, using machine translation).
Re claim 3, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the apparatus in its entirety weighs less than 100 lbs.
Lesellier discloses the apparatus to launch the armature is hand held (fig 1, pg 2, indicated text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of Vjacheslavovich to be hand held, as disclosed by Lesellier, and thereby its entirety weighing less than 100 lbs, in order to employ the apparatus in an easily portable manner, as demonstrated by Lesellier.
Re claim 11, Vjacheslavovich discloses claim 6 as discussed above and but is silent with respect to the ferromagnetic material is selected from the group consisting of: Permendur KF49, Permendur 2V, ferrite, iron, steel, or steel alloys.
Lesellier discloses the ferromagnetic material of the armature 12 is steel (pg 3, indicated text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ferromagnetic material of the armature to be steel, as disclosed by Lesellier, in order to form the armature from a known ferromagnetic material employed for armatures, as demonstrated by Lesellier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jacobsen et al. (US5252870, figs 1-4, coil 24, 152, armature 40,124) reads on at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights