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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment required the new grounds of rejection, shown below. Specifically, Faulhaber teaches the slit and wiring configuration claimed, but it appears to be in two separate embodiments. Faulhaber explicitly teaches a coil with two wirings on opposites sides of the same flexible substrate in column 3, lines 7-12. However, when teaching the slit in the wirings in Fig. 5, Faulhaber switches to using the word “layers” to describe the substrate. However, given the combination, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to put the wirings of Fig. 5 on opposites sides of the same substrate, as shown below.
Further, though not required in the rejection of claim 1 below, Yan also discloses a flexible substrate with a wiring on each side of the same substrate (paragraph 0032 “two surfaces”), with the orthogonal parts in the claimed configuration (see Fig. 4).
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 (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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulhaber (US 3,944,857).
Regarding claim 1: Faulhaber discloses a coil substrate (Fig. 1), comprising:
a flexible substrate (10); and
a coil (20) comprising a first wiring (solid lines in Fig. 1) formed on a first surface (upper face) of the flexible substrate and a second wiring (broken lines in Fig. 1) formed on a second surface (reverse face) of the flexible substrate on an opposite side with respect to the first surface (column 3, lines 7-12),
wherein the flexible substrate is configured to be wound around an axis extending in an orthogonal direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the flexible substrate such that the flexible substrate is formed into a cylindrical shape (claim 1, the substrate is rolled into a spiral configuration, which is in other words, a cylindrical shape, inherently having an axis), and the coil is formed such that the first wiring has a first orthogonal part extending along the orthogonal direction, that the second wiring has a second orthogonal part extending along the orthogonal direction overlapping with the first orthogonal part in a cross section of the first orthogonal part (when the embodiment of Fig. 2 is used), the flexible substrate, and the second orthogonal part, and that at least one of the first orthogonal part and the second orthogonal part has at least one slit (110, Fig. 5) formed along the orthogonal direction (as the orthogonal direction is the axial direction, when rolled, the slit 110 will be in the orthogonal direction).
This embodiment of Faulhaber does not explicitly disclose the at least one slit overlapping with the at least one slit of a respective one of the first and second orthogonal parts overlapping across the flexible substate.
However, since Faulhaber teaches a first wiring formed on a first surface (upper face) of the flexible substrate and a second wiring (broken lines in Fig. 1) formed on a second surface (reverse face) of the flexible substrate on an opposite side with respect to the first surface (column 3, lines 7-12), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wirings in Fig. 5 of Faulhaber to be on opposites of the same flexible substrates, as disclosed in column 3, lines 7-12, in order to reduce the number of required substrates.
Regarding claim 2: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that the at least one slit of the first orthogonal part and the at least one slit of the second orthogonal part have a same width (such as 102, each slit is the same).
Regarding claim 3: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that each of the first orthogonal part (73) and the second orthogonal part (77) is extending orthogonal to long sides of the flexible substate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 4-6: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that each of the first orthogonal part and the second orthogonal part has a plurality of slits overlapping with the plurality of slits of the respective one of the first and second orthogonal parts overlapping in the cross section of the first orthogonal part, the flexible substrate, and the second orthogonal part, respectively (given the combination of claim 1, 104 in Fig. 5 has two slits 112 and 114).
Regarding claim 7: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that the first wiring has the first orthogonal part extending along the orthogonal direction, that the second wiring has the second orthogonal part extending along the orthogonal direction, and each of the first orthogonal part and the second orthogonal part has the at least one slit (110) formed along the orthogonal direction (see above rejections), but does not explicitly disclose is formed in a plurality such that the plurality of coils.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the coils of Faulhaber to be a plurality of coils in order to increase the current that can be in the system.
Regarding claim 8: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that the at least one slit of the first orthogonal part and the at least one slit of the second orthogonal part have a same width (such as 102, each slit is the same).
Regarding claim 9: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that each of the first orthogonal part (73) and the second orthogonal part (77) is extending orthogonal to long sides of the flexible substate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 10-12: Faulhaber discloses the coil is formed such that each of the first orthogonal part and the second orthogonal part has a plurality of slits overlapping with the plurality of slits of the respective one of the first and second orthogonal parts overlapping in the cross section of the first orthogonal part, the flexible substrate, and the second orthogonal part, respectively (given the combination of claim 1, 104 in Fig. 5 has two slits 112 and 114).
Regarding claims 13 and 15-17: Faulhaber discloses a motor coil substrate (column 1, line 6), comprising:
the coil substrate of Claim 1 wound into the cylindrical shape such that the first surface of the flexible substrate is positioned on an inner peripheral side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface is of the flexible substrate is positioned on an outer peripheral side of the cylindrical shape (when 10 is wound in the spiral, or cylinder, it would result in the upper surface of the flexible substrate facing on the outer peripheral side, and the reverse surface being on the inner peripheral side, or vice versa).
Regarding claim 14: Faulhaber discloses the coil substrate of Claim 1 is wound into the cylindrical shape such that the coil substrate has a polygonal cylindrical shape (inherent when would into a spiral or cylinder), but does not explicitly disclose a polygonal cross-sectional shape of 48 or more sides.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polygonal cylinder of Faulhaber to have 48 or more sides in order to have an optimal design.
Regarding claim 18: Faulhaber discloses a motor coil substrate (column 1, line 6), comprising:
the coil substrate of Claim 1 wound into the cylindrical shape such that the first surface of the flexible substrate is positioned on an inner peripheral side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface is of the flexible substrate is positioned on an outer peripheral side of the cylindrical shape (when 10 is wound in the spiral, or cylinder, it would result in the upper surface of the flexible substrate facing on the outer peripheral side, and the reverse surface being on the inner peripheral side, or vice versa).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulhaber, in view of Yan et al. (“Yan”; US 2009/0072651).
Regarding claims 19 and 20: Faulhaber discloses the motor coil substrate of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose a motor, comprising: a cylindrical yoke;
the motor coil substrate on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke; a rotation shaft positioned on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke such that the rotation shaft is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate; and a magnet fixed to the rotation shaft positioned on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke such that the magnet is positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate.
However, Yan discloses a motor (1A, Fig. 1a), comprising:
a cylindrical yoke (11);
the motor coil substrate (12) positioned on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke;
a rotation shaft (14) positioned on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke such that the rotation shaft is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate; and
a magnet (13) fixed to the rotation shaft positioned on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke such that the magnet is positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate (Fig. 1a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor coil substrate of Faulhaber to be on yoke and shaft of Yan in order to form a functional motor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834