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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (JP 2013119799 A).
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 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 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]).
As to claim 2/1, 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 4/1, 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 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 further describes An electronic device, in which the vibration actuator according to claim 1 is mounted (fuel cell para [0001]).
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) 3 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).
As to claim 3/1, Nakajima 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 dampers 140, 142 serving as shock absorbing members for each of the pair of end portion members 102, 135 (para [0010],[0011]).
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 140,142 in the interference region as taught by Shim, for the advantageous benefit reducing noise in case of contact as taught by Shim (para [0011]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2013119799 A) in view of Mikkelsen et al. (US 2014/0158788 A1, hereinafter Mikkelsen).
As to claim 5/1, Nakajima 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 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 Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0151895 A1, hereinafter Takahashi).
As to claim 6/1, Nakajima 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 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
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