DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 4.2.24. In view of this communication, claims 1-9 are now pending in this application.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Actuator suitable for reciprocating vibration or similar.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 6,8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ando et al(US20210336521A1), hereinafter Ando, in view of Ando and Song (KR101067740B1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Ando discloses (Figs 1-3) an actuator (1) comprising:
a support body (2) comprising a case (20) in a tube shape;
a movable body (3) comprising a support shaft (30) disposed at a center (L) of the case;
a connection member (10) which connects the support body with the movable body; and
a magnetic drive mechanism (6) which comprises a magnet (61) and a coil (62) and is structured to relatively move the movable body in an axial line direction (L1-L2) of the support shaft with respect to the support body;
wherein the connection member (10) comprises:
an inner frame part (36,37) in a ring shape (Fig 2) which comprises a through-hole to which the support shaft (30) is fitted [0054,0055];
an outer frame part (51,52) in a ring shape (fig 2) which is held on an inner side (22) of the case and is disposed on an outer peripheral side (Fig 3) with respect to the inner frame part; and
a connection body (11,12) which is connected with the outer frame part (51,52) and the inner frame part (36,37) and is provided with at least one of elasticity and viscoelasticity [0036 discloses gel] but does not explicitly disclose the inner frame part is made of brass; and
arithmetic surface roughness of an outer peripheral face of the inner frame part is not less than 1.0μm (micrometre).
Ando further discloses arithmetic surface roughness of an outer peripheral face of the inner frame part is not less than 1.0μm (micrometre) (Para 0054 discloses shaft 30 and frame member 36,37 are made of metal and surface roughness is a Result Effective Variable [MPEP 2144.05.II.B] of metallic components which are being pressfit. For e.g, if surface roughness is too high, then pressfit forces are high and more varying and if surface roughness is very low, cost if high. Further the claimed roughness range is broad with a small lower limit which does not clarify any special effect in claimed range i.e., 1 um to infinity)
Song discloses (Fig 3) inner frame part (52) is made of brass [Para 0025](52 and rod 21 are pressfitted together and are moving components) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed actuator of Ando with brass inner frame as taught by Song in order to required design choice for material of moving components for e.g., which are non-magnetic.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
768
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
648
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
280
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Ando discloses (Figs 1-3) an actuator (1) comprising:
a support body (2) comprising a case (20) in a tube shape;
a movable body (3) comprising a support shaft (30) disposed at a center (L) of the case;
a connection member (10) which connects the support body with the movable body; and
a magnetic drive mechanism (6) which comprises a magnet (61) and a coil (62) and is structured to relatively move the movable body in an axial line direction (L1-L2) of the support shaft with respect to the support body;
wherein the connection member (10) comprises:
an inner frame part (36,37) in a ring shape (Fig 2) which comprises a through-hole to which the support shaft (30) is fitted [0054,0055];
an outer frame part (51,52) in a ring shape (fig 2) which is held on an inner side (22) of the case and is disposed on an outer peripheral side (Fig 3) with respect to the inner frame part; and
a connection body (11,12) which is connected with the outer frame part (51,52) and the inner frame part (36,37) and is provided with at least one of elasticity and viscoelasticity [0036 discloses gel] but does not explicitly disclose the inner frame part is made of stainless steel; and
arithmetic surface roughness of an outer peripheral face of the inner frame part is not less than 1.0μm (micrometre).
Ando further discloses arithmetic surface roughness of an outer peripheral face of the inner frame part is not less than 1.0μm (micrometre) (Para 0054 discloses shaft 30 and frame member 36,37 are made of metal and surface roughness is a Result Effective Variable [MPEP 2144.05.II.B] of metallic components which are being pressfit. For e.g, if surface roughness is too high, then pressfit forces are high and more varying and if surface roughness is very low, cost if high. Further the claimed roughness range is broad with a small lower limit which does not clarify any special effect in claimed range i.e., 1 um to infinity)
Song discloses (Fig 3) inner frame part (40) is made of stainless steel [Para 0031](40 and rod 21 are pressfitted together and are moving components) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed actuator of Ando with stainless steel inner frame as taught by Song in order to required design choice for material of moving components for e.g., which are non magnetic.
Regarding Claim 3, Ando discloses (Figs 1-3) an actuator (1) comprising:
a support body (2) comprising a case (20) in a tube shape;
a movable body (3) comprising a support shaft (30) disposed at a center (L) of the case;
a connection member (10) which connects the support body with the movable body; and
a magnetic drive mechanism (6) which comprises a magnet (61) and a coil (62) and is structured to relatively move the movable body in an axial line direction (L1-L2) of the support shaft with respect to the support body;
wherein the connection member (10) comprises:
an inner frame part (36,37) in a ring shape (Fig 2) which comprises a through-hole to which the support shaft (30) is fitted [0054,0055];
an outer frame part (51,52) in a ring shape (fig 2) which is held on an inner side (22) of the case and is disposed on an outer peripheral side (Fig 3) with respect to the inner frame part; and
a connection body (11,12) which is connected with the outer frame part (51,52) and the inner frame part (36,37) and is provided with at least one of elasticity and viscoelasticity [0036 discloses gel] but does not explicitly disclose an outer peripheral portion including at least an outer peripheral face of the inner frame part is made of resin.
Song discloses (Fig 3) an outer peripheral portion (50) including at least an outer peripheral face of the inner frame part (40) is made of resin [Para 0025 discloses 40 and 50 being insert molded and rod 21 pressfitted together with 40, 50 and they are moving components) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed actuator of Ando with insert molded frame as taught by Song in order to required design choice for material of moving components for e.g., which are non magnetic in combination with desired shape at a lower cost that can be achieved by insert molding.
Regarding Claim 6, Ando in view of Ando and Song discloses the actuator according to claim 1. Ando in view of Ando and Song further discloses wherein the support body (Ando, 2) comprises a recessed part (46) to which the outer frame part (52) is fitted, and the recessed part comprises a step part (521) which is abutted with the outer frame part in the axial line direction (L1-L2) of the support shaft (30) when the outer frame part is fitted to the recessed part (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Ando in view of Ando and Song discloses the actuator according to claim 2. Ando in view of Ando and Song further discloses wherein the support body (Ando, 2) comprises a recessed part (46) to which the outer frame part (52) is fitted, and the recessed part comprises a step part (521) which is abutted with the outer frame part in the axial line direction (L1-L2) of the support shaft (30) when the outer frame part is fitted to the recessed part (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Ando in view of Ando and Song discloses the actuator according to claim 3. Ando in view of Ando and Song further discloses wherein the support body (Ando, 2) comprises a recessed part (46) to which the outer frame part (52) is fitted, and the recessed part comprises a step part (521) which is abutted with the outer frame part in the axial line direction (L1-L2) of the support shaft (30) when the outer frame part is fitted to the recessed part (Fig 3).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US2024333071A1 (which is now allowed 1.30.26). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are genus and US2024333071A1 is the species and therefore will be the read by the conflicting patent.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US2024333071A1 (which is now allowed 1.30.26). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations and structure recited are essentially the same .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5,7 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:
Claim 4 recites “ The actuator according to claim 1, wherein the arithmetic surface roughness of the outer peripheral face of the inner frame part is not more than 3.2μm”. Neither Ando nor Song disclose a surface roughness needed. Therefore claim 4 is allowable. Claim 7 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “ The actuator according to claim 3, wherein the inner frame part comprises a first member which is the outer peripheral portion and a second member made of metal which is fitted to an inner side of the first member and comprises the through-hole, and the support shaft is fixed to the first member through the second member by press-fitting the support shaft to the through-hole”. Neither Ando nor Song disclose this structure of insert molded inner frame as claimed. Therefore claim 5 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834