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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 5/3/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 9 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that The Examiner alleges that Nakajima discloses "each of the pair of end portion members 60 includes an interference region C that abuts against the movable body 30 at the time of impact and restricts the movement range of the movable body 30, and a vent hole region that is located on an outer peripheral side of the interference region and includes a plurality of vent holes 62, 63 arranged in a circumferential direction." The Examiner further asserts that FIG. 2 of Nakajima shows multiple vent holes 62, 63 arranged on either side of a central axis. Applicants respectfully traverse these findings. In Nakajima, the vent holes 62 and 63, which the Examiner asserts are located in a "vent hole region on an outer peripheral side of the interference region," are actually located within the region where the movable body 30 would interfere (abut) in the event of an impact. That is, the vent holes in Nakajima are situated directly at the point of contact, which is fundamentally different from the structure of the present invention. This structural difference is clearly evident from FIG. 2 of Nakajima. Specifically, the vent holes 62, 63 and the suction valve 120 are arranged at positions that directly oppose, in the vibration direction, the center plate 75 fixed to the center of the diaphragm 40 (which supports the movable body 30). Under Nakajima's arrangement, if the movable body 30 were to abut against the end portion member 60, the vent holes 62, 63 and the suction valve 120-being located exactly within the contact area-would receive a direct impact and be damaged (cracked or the like) due to the impact. Furthermore, Nakajima is directed to an electromagnetic diaphragm pump specifically designed to avoid any contact between moving parts. Nakajima explicitly states that its objective is to provide "an electromagnetic diaphragm pump in which there is no risk of the part holding the diaphragm colliding with other parts" It further emphasizes that "there is no risk of the part holding the diaphragm colliding with other parts, resulting in extremely excellent effects". These statements demonstrate that Nakajima's entire disclosure is predicated on the absolute design requirement that the moving parts must not collide with other parts to prevent damage to the valve structure. Nakajima does not contemplate, and in fact teaches away from, a configuration where a movable body abuts against an end member. Consequently, Nakajima fails to disclose or suggest an "interference region" intended for abutment, nor does it disclose a "vent hole region is not abutted against or interfered with by the movable body" as now recited in amended Claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because claims 1-9 are now rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2013119799 A) in view of Shim et al. (US 2016/0172950 A1). Nakajima is modified according to Shim to have the vent hole region is not abutted against or interfered with by the movable body 30 for the advantageous benefit of preventing mechanical contact between the vent hole region and the movable body 30 as taught by Shim (para [0064]).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the vent hole region does not overlap with the end portion of the movable body in the plan view recited in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). FIG. 2 of the Application shows dampers 72 and elastic 81 overlap with vent holes 126 in the plan view. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2013119799 A) in view of Shim et al. (US 2016/0172950 A1, hereinafter Shim, of record).
As to claim 1, Nakajima shows (FIG. 2, 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
952
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A vibration actuator 1, comprising:
a fixing body 10 having a wound coil 23;
a movable body 30 housed in the fixing body 10, having a magnet 36,37 and a yoke 35, and supported such that it vibrates inside the coil 23 when the coil 23 is energized; and
a pair of end portion members 60 disposed at end portions of the fixing body 10 and configured not to contact the movable body 30 in a normal vibration range of the movable body 30 but to contact the movable body 30 at a time of impact to regulate a movement range of the movable body 30; wherein,
each of the pair of end portion members 60 includes:
an interference region C that restricts the movement range of the movable body 30 by the movable body 30 abutting against and interfering with the interference region at the time of impact, and
a vent hole region that is located on an outer peripheral side of the interference region and includes a plurality of vent holes 62,63 arranged in a circumferential direction (The structure is capable of performing the claimed functions, FIG. 2 shows multiple vent holes 62,63 arranged on either side of a central axis para [0034], [0037]).
Nakajima does not show the vent hole region is not abutted against or interfered with by the movable body.
Shim shows (FIG. 11):
PNG
media_image2.png
420
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the vent hole region V is not abutted against or interfered with by the movable body 40 (para [0064],[0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator of Nakajima to have the vent hole region is not abutted against or interfered with by the movable body 30 as taught by Shim, for the advantageous benefit of preventing mechanical contact between the vent hole region and the movable body 30 as taught by Shim (para [0064]).
As to claim 2/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Nakajima further shows (FIG. 2 above) wherein each of the pair of end portion members 60 includes reinforcing ribs 69, the vent holes 62,63 are located in the vent hole region excluding a region of the reinforcing ribs 69 (multiple walls 69 para [0035]).
As to claim 3/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for each of the pair of end portion members is provided with a cushioning member in the interference region.
Shim shows a shock absorbing member 70 for an end portion member 30 with cushion (para [0064],[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator of Nakajima to have each of the pair of end portion members 60 is provided with a cushioning member 70 in the interference region as taught by Shim, for the advantageous benefit of preventing mechanical contact between the vent hole region and the movable body 30 as taught by Shim (para [0064]).
As to claim 4/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Nakajima further shows (FIG. 2 above) wherein each of the vent holes 62,63 is formed a shape bending to prevent foreign matter from entering (is capable of performing the claimed function).
As to claim 7/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Nakajima further shows (FIG. 3) wherein the yoke 35 is fixed to the magnet 36,37 such that an outer circumferential surface of the yoke 35 is flush with an outer circumferential surface of the magnet 36,37, and forms an outer circumferential surface of the movable body 30 together with the outer circumferential surface of the magnet 36,37.
As to claim 8/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Nakajima further describes an electronic device, in which the vibration actuator according to claim 1 is mounted (fuel cell para [0001]).
As to claim 9/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Nakajima further shows (as modified by Shim) wherein:
the movable body 30 has an end portion in a vibration direction that abuts against and is interfered with by the interference region C at the time of impact,
the interference region C overlaps with the end portion of the movable body 30 in a plan view, and
the vent hole region does not overlap with the end portion of the movable body 30 in the plan view.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2013119799 A) in view of Shim et al. (US 2016/0172950 A1, hereinafter Shim) and Mikkelsen et al. (US 2014/0158788 A1, hereinafter Mikkelsen).
As to claim 5/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for a total opening area of each of the pair of end portion members of the vent holes is 2% or more and 20% or less of a surface area of each of the pair of end portion members.
Mikkelsen shows (FIG. 1) a total opening area of the one or more vent holes 120 is fifteen
percent of a surface area of the housing 102 (para[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the end portion members 60 of Nakajima in view of Shim to have a total opening area of each of the pair of end portion members 60 of the vent holes 62,63 is 2% or more and 20% or less of a surface area of each of the pair of end portion members 60 as taught by Mikkelsen, for the advantageous benefit of permitting a desired amount of air to reach the ambient atmosphere as taught by Mikkelsen (para[0020]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2013119799 A) in view of Shim et al. (US 2016/0172950 A1, hereinafter Shim) and Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0151895 A1, hereinafter Takahashi).
As to claim 6/1, Nakajima in view of Shim was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Nakajima further shows (FIG. 2 above) the fixing body 10 includes a frame S around the core 20.
Nakajima does not show wherein the fixing body includes an electromagnetic shield part, and a magnetic attraction force generated between the magnet and the electromagnetic shield functions as a magnetic spring.
Takahashi shows (FIG. 3) base 23 and cover 24 are formed of a conductive material to function as a yoke and an electromagnetic shield (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator of Nakajima in view of Shim to have the fixing body 10 includes an electromagnetic shield part S, and a magnetic attraction force generated between the magnet 36,37 and the electromagnetic shield S functions as a magnetic spring as taught by Takahashi, for the advantageous benefit of having the frame S be part of a magnetic circuit and function as an electromagnetic shield as taught by Takahashi (para [0011]) to isolate the coil 23 from electromagnetic interference.
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 ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights