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 . Claims 1-4 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-23-2024 and 05-31-2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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: “ELECTROMAGNEITC TRANSPORT SYSTEM WITH AIR TIGHT HOUSING WITH STATORS AND CABLES WITH EMPTY CONDUITS FOR AIR EXCHANGE”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 2 both recites the broad recitation [ an exchange of a medium ], and the claim also recites [, in particular an air exchange ] which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Clarification is needed. Examiner will delete in particular for examination purposes.
Claims 3-4 are rejected based on dependency from rejected claims 1 and 2.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1,6 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinzenich (US PG Pub 20200048016 hereinafter “Sinzenich”) in view of Frank (Deutsch Patent Publication DE 19826373 A1 hereinafter “Frank”).
Re-claim 1, as best understood, Sinzenich discloses an electromagnetic transport system (10) comprising a stator (65) and at least one transport unit (20), which is arranged to be movable along the stator (65), the stator comprising at least one drive module (25) having an airtight housing (125 having sealing element s175,185,195,200), in which a plurality of drive coils (70) are arranged, and a supply cable (417,419) being provided, which connects the at least one drive module (25) of the stator to a supply voltage for a voltage supply (power supply connection to 417).
Sinzenich fail to explicitly teach wherein an empty conduit is integrated into the supply cable, wherein the empty conduit is arranged inside an outer sheath of the supply cable, in that the empty conduit is provided with an opening at a supply-side end of the supply cable, and in that an end of the supply cable on the drive module side is connected to the at least one drive module in such a way that an exchange of a medium, in particular an air exchange, takes place between an interior of the at least one drive module formed by the airtight housing and an environment via the empty conduit.
However, Frank teaches wherein an empty conduit (70) is integrated into the supply cable (66), wherein the empty conduit (70) is arranged inside an outer sheath of the supply cable (66,70), in that the empty conduit (70) is provided with an opening at a supply-side end of the supply cable (open at supply location 24), and in that an end of the supply cable on the drive module side (open at electric motor 24 end) mis connected to the at least one drive module (to coil, see fig.2) in such a way that an exchange of a medium, in particular an air exchange (vent line 70) , takes place between an interior of the at least one drive module formed by the airtight housing (54,60) and an environment (Page 2, ventilation is needed ot relief negative pressure inside engine compartment, or motor housing, prevent suction effect) via the empty conduit (70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the system of Sinzenich wherein an empty conduit is integrated into the supply cable, wherein the empty conduit is arranged inside an outer sheath of the supply cable, in that the empty conduit is provided with an opening at a supply-side end of the supply cable, and in that an end of the supply cable on the drive module side is connected to the at least one drive module in such a way that an exchange of a medium, in particular an air exchange, takes place between an interior of the at least one drive module formed by the airtight housing and an environment via the empty conduit as suggested by Frank to prevent suction effect, seal the device, and prevent negative pressure inside the device (Frank, Page 2, P[1-2]).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
570
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
758
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 6, Sinzenich as modified discloses the transport system according to claim 1,
Sinzenich fails to explicitly teach wherein the empty conduit protrudes beyond the supply-side end of the supply cable at the supply-side end of the supply cable.
However, Frank teaches wherein the empty conduit (70) protrudes beyond (70 being approximately same size, therefore it is more or less, and ventilation line is a little upward, especially in fig.4-fig.6 to maintain pressure.) the supply-side end (end of 74) of the supply cable (66) at the supply-side end (end at 74) of the supply cable (66,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the system of Sinzenich wherein the empty conduit protrudes beyond the supply-side end of the supply cable at the supply-side end of the supply cable as suggested by Frank to prevent seal the device, and prevent negative pressure inside the device (Frank, Page 2, P[1-2]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinzenich in view of Frank (and in further view of Linhoff (German Patent Pub DE 10232219 A1 hereinafter “Linhoff”
Re-claim 7, Sinzenich as modified discloses the transport system according claim 1.
Sinzenich fails to explicitly teach the material wherein the empty conduit is made of plastic material.
However, Linhoff teaches wherein the empty conduit is made of plastic material (membrane material of channel made of PTFE which is plastic material, P[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the system of Sinzenich wherein the empty conduit is made of plastic material as suggested by Linhoff make simplified reliable device (Linhoff, P[0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 as best understood, is 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:
Regarding claim 2, recites” inter alia” 2. The transport system according to claim 1, further comprises at least one further drive module which is connected to the at least one drive module via a power cable, an empty conduit also being integrated into the power cable, and a first end of the power cable being connected to the at least one drive module and a second end being connected to the at least one further drive module in such a way that an exchange of the medium, air exchange, takes place between an interior of the at least one further drive module formed by the airtight housing and the interior of the at least one drive module via the empty conduit in the power cable.”
The prior art of record fail to teach such a combination of a secondary conduit with such configuration of connection between the empty conduit of the second structure being connected as such details in claim 2 along with claim 1. The combination of limitations is not taught or suggested by any of the prior art of record, ip.com search or AI similarity search.
Claims 3,4,5,8-12 are objected to for being dependent on rejected claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834