DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that: “Telep does not contain any explicit description of the dimensional relationship between the wall thickness and the end surface width of the case 232, which fails to disclose the feature "the annular wall of the tube member comprises an annular end face having a width equal to the plate thickness of the annular wall"”. This argument is not persuasive because Telep teaches that the wall thickness of the tube member 232 is the same as the end surface width of the tube member 232 because they are the same structure, and thus inherently have the thickness of the wall equal to the width of the end face in view of the structure shown in the figures.
The applicant argues that: “Furthermore, the contact between the case 232 and the washer 218 in Telep is understood as radial contact between curved surfaces. In the application, the annular end face of the tube member and the annular joint surface of the flat plate member are in close axial contact with each other between planes. Therefore, the orientation, shape, and manner of contact of the joining surfaces are fundamentally different between Telep and the application.” This argument is not directed to specific claim language and is thus not persuasive. The differences between the prior art and the invention need to be present in the claims to overcome the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Telep (US 2004/0257185).
In re claim 1, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses an electromagnetic actuator comprising: a mover, reciprocating along a predetermined axis line; a first stator (208) and a second stator (216), accommodating the mover to be capable of reciprocating in a direction of the axis line and arranged as being spaced apart in the direction of the axis line; a bobbin (222), which is arranged around the first stator and the second stator and around which a coil for excitation is wound; a tube member (232), surrounding the bobbin, connected to the first stator, forming a magnetic path and including an annular wall (wall of the tube member), the annular wall having a predetermined plate thickness; and a flat plate member (218), connected to the second stator and the tube member and forming a magnetic path, wherein the flat plate member includes an annular joint surface, the annular wall of the tube member comprises an annular end face having a width equal to the plate thickness of the annular wall (this is inherent because the annular end face and the annular wall are the same structure, and thus have the same thickness), and is fixed to the flat plate. With respect to the process of fixing the flat plate, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e actuator, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. press fitting or metallurgical joining. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 3, with respect to the metallurgical joining process, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e actuator, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. metallurgical joining. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 4, with respect to the cutting and rolling process, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e tube member, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. cutting and rolling. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 7, with respect to attaching the device to an attachment object, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In re claim 8, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses that the bobbin comprises: a through hole, through which the first stator and the second stator pass (as seen in the figures); and a positioning part (inner surface of the bobbin that holds the stators, in the same way as shown by the applicant), partially formed in the through hole, allowing the first stator and the second stator to be fitted therein, and positioning the first stator and the second stator on the axis line (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 9, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses that the positioning part comprises: a first positioning part, formed near one end opening of the through hole in the direction of the axis line and positioning the first stator; and a second positioning part, formed near the other end opening of the through hole in the direction of the axis line and positioning the second stator (inner surfaces of the bobbin that contact the first and the second stator as seen in the figures).
In re claim 11, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses that the through hole comprises: a first through hole, centered on the axis line; and a second through hole, adjacent to the first through hole in the direction of the axis line and having a smaller diameter than the first through hole (as seen in structures shown in figures 6 and 12-17); the first positioning part is formed in an area of the first through hole; and the second positioning part is formed in an area of the second through hole.
In re claim 12, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses that the first stator comprises: a cylindrical part, defining an inner peripheral surface that receives the mover; a bottom wall, blocking one end side of the cylindrical part and defining a rest position of the mover (as shown in the figures); and an outer peripheral fitting part (outer surface fitting into the bobbin), fitted into the first positioning part; and the second stator comprises: an insertion hole, receiving the mover and exposing the mover at a tip thereof (as seen in the figures); and an outer peripheral fitting part, fitted into the second positioning part (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 13, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses a plunger (202), made of a magnetic material; and a shaft (200), made of a nonmagnetic material (this is inherent to allow for movement inside the stators), fixed to the plunger, and exerting a driving force to the outside; the second stator comprises a guide hole that slidably guides the shaft; the inner peripheral surface of the first stator receives the plunger in a non-contact manner to be capable of reciprocating; and the insertion hole of the second stator receives the shaft in a non-contact manner to be capable of reciprocating (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 14, Telep, in figures 1-15, discloses that the second stator comprises a stopper (spring 234 acts as a stopper) that defines an operating position of the mover.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telep (US 2004/0257185) in view of LaMarca et al. (US 2002/0175791).
In re claim 5, Talep teaches the claimed device except for crimping pieces. LaMarca however teaches a similar device having a tube member with a plurality of arc-shaped end faces and a plurality of crimping pieces (82) that are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction, and an annular flange extending in a direction perpendicular to the axis line and is fixed to the tube member by the plurality of crimping pieces (at sections 80). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the crimping pieces of LaMarca to the tube of Talep to improve connection strength between the tube and the stator. With respect to the crimping process, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e tube member/stator, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. crimping. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 6, LaMarca discloses that a plurality of notches (80) are formed in an outer edge area of the annular flange in the circumferential direction; and the plurality of crimping pieces are respectively fitted into the plurality of notches.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telep (US 2004/0257185) in view of Inami (US 6409144).
In re claim 10, Telep teaches the claimed device except for the ridges. Inami however, teaches a similar device having grooves (14b,15b) in the stators, and corresponding ridges in the through hole of the bobbin. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the ridges of Inami to the device of Telep to provide improved attachment between the stators and the bobbin.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telep (US 2004/0257185) in view of Park (US 11649906).
In re claim 15, Telep teaches the claimed device except for a buffer. Park teaches a similar device having a buffer (330) provided on a mover. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted a buffer as taught by Park to the device of Talep to reduce vibrations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights