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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A legible copy of each cited foreign patent document (KR 100423366) was not provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23-25, 27-29 and 33 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recited:
“A magnetic levitation device, comprising: a rotor; and a stator, wherein the stator surrounds the rotor, or, the rotor surrounds the stator, wherein:
the stator comprises at least three magnetic stator substrates
…
the at least three magnetic stator substrates comprise a first magnetic stator substrate, wherein a protrusion and a magnetic levitation coil of the first magnetic stator substrate apply an upward force along the axial direction of the stator on the rotor, and
a ratio of the number of the first magnetic stator substrate(s) to the total number of the at least three magnetic stator substrates is greater than or equal to 50%”
In summary, the claim recited: “a first magnetic stator substrate” and at “least three magnetic stator substrates” which appeared to recited only one “first magnetic stator substrate”.
Therefore, such ratio between the first magnetic stator substate and the at least three magnetic stator substrate is 1/3 which cannot be greater than or equal to 50% as also claimed in claim 1.
Therefore, such claim limitation rendered the claim indefinite.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23-25 and 27-29 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 33 is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 25, 27-29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiba et al. (US 2010/0231076 A1).
RE claim 1, Chiba teaches a magnetic levitation device 100 (Fig.1) comprising:
a rotor 7; and a stator (41, 42, 43), wherein the stator (41, 42, 43) surrounds the rotor 7, or, the rotor surrounds the stator, wherein:
the stator (41, 42, 43) comprises at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB1, SB2), a permanent magnet 73, 75 and a guiding magnet (GM) (guiding magnet GM is part of the back-yoke of stator 42, see annotated Fig.1 below),
the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the stator 24 to define at least two gaps (G) in the axial direction of the stator (41, 42, 43), the permanent magnet 73, 75 and the guiding magnet (GM) are alternately arranged in the at least two gaps (G) in the axial direction of the stator 24;
each of the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) comprises a substrate body (B) and a protrusion (P) connected with the substrate body (B), the protrusion (P) is protruded from the permanent magnet 73, 75 and the guiding magnet (GM) towards the rotor 7, and a magnetic levitation coil (47, 49, 71) is wound on the protrusion (P) (Fig.1 and ¶ 9, 121); and
the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) comprise a first magnetic stator substrate (SB1), wherein a protrusion (P) and a magnetic levitation coil of the first magnetic stator substrate apply an upward force (via flux Ψ) along the axial direction (y-axis) of the stator on the rotor, and a ratio of the number of the first magnetic stator substrate(s) (SB1) to the total number of the at least three magnetic stator substrates is greater than or equal to 50% (There are total of four substrate SB, therefore, the number of first magnetic stator substrate SB1 is 50% of the total of substrates of four substrate SB).
[AltContent: textbox (Guiding Magnet (GM))]
[AltContent: textbox (Body (B))][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Substrate (SB2))][AltContent: textbox (Substrate (SB1))][AltContent: textbox (Protrusion (P))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gap (G))]
PNG
media_image1.png
864
1062
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to the limitation “an upward force along the axial direction”, such limitation has been interpreted as method of operating the stator.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
RE claim 2/1, Chiba teaches the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) further comprise a second magnetic stator substrate (SB2), a protrusion (P) and a magnetic levitation coil 71 of the second magnetic stator substrate apply a downward force (via flux Ψ) along the axial direction (functional language and/or method of operating the motor) of the stator (41, 42, 43) on the rotor 7, and the number of the first magnetic stator substrate(s) (SB1) is greater than or equal to the number of the second magnetic stator substrate (SB2) (see Fig.1 for numbers of stator substrates SB1 and SB2 are the same).
With regard to the limitation “apply a downward force along the axial direction”, such limitation has been interpreted as method of operating the stator.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
RE claim 3/1, Chiba teaches the number of the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) is four (see Fig.1) or more than four; and in the axial direction of the stator, opposite surfaces of two adjacent permanent magnets 41, 43 have the same magnetism (Fig.1).
RE claim 25/2, Chiba teaches the number of the first magnetic stator substrate(s) (SB1) is at least two, and the number of the second magnetic stator substrate(s) (SB2) is at least one (Fig.1).
RE claim 27/1, Chiba teaches among at least two gaps (G), the permanent magnet 73, 75 is arranged in an odd-numbered gap counting from top to bottom in the axial direction of the stator, and the guiding magnet (GM) is arranged in an even-numbered gap counting from top to bottom in the axial direction of the stator (Fig.1).
RE claim 28/1, Chiba teaches the permanent magnet 73, 75 is in direct contact with the magnetic stator substrate (SB) adjacent thereto, or the permanent magnet is spaced apart from the magnetic stator substrate adjacent thereto by an air gap, or a guiding magnet piece is inserted between the permanent magnet and the magnetic stator substrate adjacent thereto.
RE claim 29/1, Chiba teaches the guiding magnet is in direct contact with the magnetic stator substrate adjacent thereto, or the guiding magnet (GM) is spaced apart from the magnetic stator substrate (SB) adjacent thereto by an air gap (G) (Fig.1), or a guiding magnet piece is inserted between the guiding magnet and the magnetic stator substrate adjacent thereto.
RE claim 33, Chiba teaches a magnetic levitation device 100 (Fig.1) comprising:
a rotor 7; and a stator (41, 42, 43), wherein the stator (41, 42, 43) surrounds the rotor 7, or, the rotor surrounds the stator, wherein:
the stator (41, 42, 43) comprises at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB1, SB2), a permanent magnet 73, 75 and a guiding magnet (GM) (guiding magnet GM is part of the back-yoke of stator 42, see annotated Fig.1 below),
the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the stator 24 to define at least two gaps (G) in the axial direction of the stator (41, 42, 43), the permanent magnet 73, 75 and the guiding magnet (GM) are alternately arranged in the at least two gaps (G) in the axial direction of the stator 24;
each of the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) comprises a substrate body (B) and a protrusion (P) connected with the substrate body (B), the protrusion (P) is protruded from the permanent magnet 73, 75 and the guiding magnet (GM) towards the rotor 7, and a magnetic levitation coil (47, 49, 71) is wound on the protrusion (P) (Fig.1 and ¶ 9, 121); and
the at least three magnetic stator substrates (SB) comprise a first magnetic stator substrate (SB1), wherein a protrusion (P) and a magnetic levitation coil of the first magnetic stator substrate apply an upward force (Ψ8) along the axial direction (y-axis) of the stator on the rotor, and a ratio of the number of the first magnetic stator substrate(s) (SB1) to the total number of the at least three magnetic stator substrates is greater than or equal to 50% (There are total of four substrate SB, therefore, the number of first magnetic stator substrate SB1 is 50% of the total of substrates of four substrate SB).
The limitation “semiconductor processing equipment” has been considered, but was not given patentable weight because such limitation is in the pre-amble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation semiconductor processing equipment is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE claim 5/2, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, a rotor body and at least three flanges protruded from the rotor body towards the stator; the number of the at least three magnetic stator substrates is equal to the number of the at least three flanges, and the at least three magnetic stator substrates are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least three flanges; and the at least three flanges comprise a first flange corresponding to the first magnetic stator substrate, and a center line of the protrusion of the first magnetic stator substrate in the axial direction of the stator is higher than a center line of the first flange in the axial direction of the stator.
Claims 5, 6, 9-11, 13 and 16 are allowable for their dependency on claim 5.
RE claim 18/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, at least one magnetic stator substrate of the at least three magnetic stator substrates comprises a plurality of teeth, the plurality of teeth are connected with the substrate body and are protruded from the permanent magnet and the guiding magnet towards the rotor, and a magnetic rotating coil is wound on each of the plurality of teeth; the magnetic levitation coil is arranged farther from the rotor than the magnetic rotating coil; and the plurality of teeth are arranged at an end of the protrusion facing towards the rotor
Claims 21, 23 and 24 are allowable for their dependency on claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834