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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024 is 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: “VIBRATION ACTUATOR WITH MOVING COIL AND MOVING MAGNEITC ASSEMLBY HAVING ELASIC PARTS”
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.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 recites “ the pair of spring stopper parts” which lacks antecedent basis, may be it is meant to be dependent from claim 11.
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 1,2,5-10,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US PG Pub 20130300219 hereinafter “Roberts” in view of Furukawa (US PG PUB 2014013751 hereinafter “Furukawa”).
Re-claim 1, Roberts discloses a vibration actuator (Title) comprising: a housing (4); a first movable part (50) including a magnet part (52,60,64), and disposed in a movable manner back and forth (connected to Springs 81,84, moving up and down) in a vibration direction (P[0034], moves up and down A direction) along an axis direction (aa) in the housing (4) through a first elastic support part (82) joined at both end portions (at 83,85) of the magnet part (50) in an axis direction (AA direction); and a second movable part (22-28) including a coil part (22) disposed coaxially with the magnet part (around 52) so as to surround the magnet part (see fig.1 22 is around 52), the second movable (22-28) being disposed in a movable manner back and forth (up and down in direction of aa) in the vibration direction in the housing (4) substantially at an some outer periphery of the first movable part (52) through a second elastic support part (184,182) joined at both end portions (192,190) of the coil part in the axis direction (direction of AA), wherein vibration is generated by driving the first movable part (50) and the second movable part (22) through energization to the coil part (22 coil is energized, claim 15).
Roberts is silent and does not explicitly show that the second movable being disposed at an outer periphery of the first movable part.
However, Furukawa shows that the second movable part (40,50) being disposed at an outer periphery of the first movable part (70,30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to show the first movable part surrounding the second movable part of Roberts where the second movable being disposed at an outer periphery of the first movable part as shown by Furukawa for a simpler structure so as to reduce structure intervention and provide simple design which reduces manufacturing costs and assembly since whole moving part is wholly inside second part with no parts interfering in between (Furukawa P[0138]).
PNG
media_image1.png
745
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
265
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the first movable part (50) and the second movable part (22-28) are simultaneously driven and moved (coil and magnet part move together, coil and magnet P[0015]).
Re-claim 5, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the first elastic support part (82) and the second elastic support part (182) are the same elastic support part (210, they are elastic spring), and wherein the same elastic support part supports (210) each of the first movable part and the second movable part (50,22, common spring) such that the first movable part and the second movable part (22,50,52) are separately (each has one branch 182 and 82) movable back and forth through elastic deformation (through movement of 182 and 82).
Re-claim 6, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein a first resonance frequency (P[0036]) of a first vibration system (50) including the first movable part (52) and the first elastic support part (82,84) is smaller than a second resonance frequency (resonance frequency of coil system, see p[0036]) of a second vibration system (22) including the second movable part (22-28) and the second elastic support part (182,184)[resonant masses in movable coil al and core cause frequencies to be close to each other times one will be smaller or larger than the other frequency, P[0039], therefore Roberts shows the frequencies to be variable and one can be bigger than the other and vice versa).”
Re-claim 7, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 6, wherein the first movable part and the second movable part (Magnet and coil 50,22) move back and forth in the same phase (the coil and magnet move with each other) in a band between the first resonance frequency (frequency of the magnetic core assembly) and second resonance frequency (frequency of the coil assembly, see P[0033], with a range of operational applications, P[0033],The respective biasing devices for the electrically conductive coil assembly and the magnetic core assembly are adapted to cause the electrically conductive coil assembly and the magnetic core assembly to vibrate independently, and preferably to have respective different natural resonant frequencies. This provides that the electrical coil assembly vibrates at a first frequency and the magnetic core assembly vibrates at a second frequency for any given input mechanical vibration…This can provide a high electrical output over a range of operational applications, where the input vibrational energy may vary in frequency, for example over time, also see P[0007], and P[0036] states, amplitude of movement is limited, both springs deform very small, therefore, they move together in same phase, up and down, see P[0036], The high degree of magnetic coupling between the movable magnetic core assembly and the movable coil, and the high mass of the movable magnetic core assembly and also the mass of the moving electrical coil assembly, enables the two resonant frequencies readily to be tuned accurately to a respective desired value, and also permits a high self-restoring force to be applied to both the movable magnetic core assembly and the moving electrical coil assembly during their resonant oscillation to minimize the amplitude of the oscillation. Since the amplitude is limited, the springs 82, 84 and 182,184 are only ever deformed by a very small degree, well within their linear spring characteristics. Typically, the gap 114, 116 between the ends 27, 29 of the central tubular body 28 and the lid 8 or base 10 respectively is about 1 mm, and the maximum amplitude is accordingly less than this distance. Again, this maximizes the useful volume 16 of the housing 4 in an axial direction.).
Re-claim 8, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1 wherein the magnet part (50) includes one magnet (52) and a yoke (60) provided at both end surfaces of the magnet in an axis direction (AA direction), and the coil part (22) includes a pair of coils (22) disposed at a position surrounding each yoke (fig.1).
Re-claim 9, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the magnet part (50) includes two magnets (52) disposed with the same poles facing each other (N,S poles), and wherein the coil part includes one coil (22) disposed at a position surrounding a portion (between magnets 52) where the two magnets face each other (see fig.1).
Re-claim 10, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the first movable part (52) includes a weight part (60) fixed to both sides of the magnet part (52) in the axis direction.
Re-claim 13, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the second movable part (27) includes an outer yoke (27) surrounding the coil part (22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,4,11,12 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:
Re-claim 3, recites “inter alia” : [Claim 1] A vibration actuator comprising: a housing; a first movable part including a magnet part, and disposed in a movable manner back and forth in a vibration direction along an axis direction in the housing through a first elastic support part joined at both end portions of the magnet part in an axis direction; and a second movable part including a coil part disposed coaxially with the magnet part so as to surround the magnet part, the second movable being disposed in a movable manner back and forth in the vibration direction in the housing at an outer periphery of the first movable part through a second elastic support part joined at both end portions of the coil part in the axis direction, wherein vibration is generated by driving the first movable part and the second movable part through energization to the coil part, 3, Roberts as modified discloses the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the both end portions (401,402) of the first movable part are inserted through the second elastic support part and located at positions protruded to outside of the both end portions of the second movable part in the vibration direction so as to be joined to the first elastic support part.”
The prior art of record, ip.com search, ai search similarity search all fail to teach or suggest alone or together the combination claim 3 with claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
553
815
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
375
441
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
572
848
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 11, recites “inter alia” : [Claim 1] A vibration actuator comprising: a housing; a first movable part including a magnet part, and disposed in a movable manner back and forth in a vibration direction along an axis direction in the housing through a first elastic support part joined at both end portions of the magnet part in an axis direction; and a second movable part including a coil part disposed coaxially with the magnet part so as to surround the magnet part, the second movable being disposed in a movable manner back and forth in the vibration direction in the housing at an outer periphery of the first movable part through a second elastic support part joined at both end portions of the coil part in the axis direction, wherein vibration is generated by driving the first movable part and the second movable part through energization to the coil part, [Claim 10] The vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the first movable part includes a weight part fixed to both sides of the magnet part in the axis direction.
[Claim 11] The vibration actuator according to claim 10, wherein the weight part is an annular member including an opening at a center, and wherein a pair of spring stopper parts joined to the weight part at the opening, disposed to protrude to outside of the second movable part in the vibration direction, making up the both end portions, and joined to the first elastic support part is provided.”
The prior art of record, ip.com search, ai search similarity search all fail to teach or suggest alone or together the combination claim 11 with claims 10 and 1.
PNG
media_image7.png
528
817
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 12, recites “inter alia” : [Claim 1] A vibration actuator comprising: a housing; a first movable part including a magnet part, and disposed in a movable manner back and forth in a vibration direction along an axis direction in the housing through a first elastic support part joined at both end portions of the magnet part in an axis direction; and a second movable part including a coil part disposed coaxially with the magnet part so as to surround the magnet part, the second movable being disposed in a movable manner back and forth in the vibration direction in the housing at an outer periphery of the first movable part through a second elastic support part joined at both end portions of the coil part in the axis direction, wherein vibration is generated by driving the first movable part and the second movable part through energization to the coil part, Claim 12, the vibration actuator according to claim 1, wherein the both end portions of the first movable part include the pair of spring stopper parts disposed to protrude to outside of both end portions of the second movable part in the vibration direction from both sides of the magnet part in the axis direction, and joined to the pair of first elastic support parts.”
The prior art of record, ip.com search, ai search similarity search all fail to teach or suggest alone or together the combination claim 12 with claim 1.
PNG
media_image8.png
546
787
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent from claim 3.
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