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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 20220216742) in view of Reimnitz et al. (US 20230307988).
Regarding claim 1, Takayama et al. discloses:
A linear (pre-amble, patentable weight not given) electric machine (abstract, para 8), comprising:
at least one shaft (3);
a stator assembly (10-12) supporting the at least one shaft (3),
a bearing assembly (17,18) supporting an end of the at least one shaft (3),
the bearing assembly (17,18) comprising a bearing housing (17) and a bearing (18) within the bearing housing.
Takayama et al. do not disclose the stator assembly comprising a magnet carrier supporting one or more magnets, the magnet carrier defining an inner cavity therein; a movement limiting assembly at an interface between the magnet carrier and the stator assembly for limiting linear movement of the magnet carrier within the stator assembly.
Reimnitz et al. disclose a device with the stator assembly (3) comprising a magnet carrier supporting one or more magnets (para 39), the magnet carrier defining an inner cavity therein (not labeled, but shown as internal part of stator 3 in Figs 1-4); a movement limiting assembly (H, Fig 2) at an interface between the magnet carrier and the stator assembly (3) for limiting linear movement of the magnet carrier within the stator assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takayama et al. to have the stator assembly comprising a magnet carrier supporting one or more magnets, the magnet carrier defining an inner cavity therein; a movement limiting assembly at an interface between the magnet carrier and the stator assembly for limiting linear movement of the magnet carrier within the stator assembly, as Reimnitz et al. disclose.
The motivation to do so would be based on cost (para 6) and available space to minimization (para 5 of Reimnitz et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 9, Takayama et al. (US 20220216742) in view of Reimnitz et al. (US 20230307988). nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “wherein during operation, the magnet carrier moves in an oscillating linear direction within the stator assembly; and during operation of the linear electric machine, limiting linear movement of the magnet carrier within the stator assembly via a movement limiting assembly at an interface between the magnet carrier and the stator assembly”.
Claims 10-16 are allowable based on their virtue of depending on claim 9.
In claim 17, Takayama et al. (US 20220216742) in view of Reimnitz et al. (US 20230307988). nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “a closed-cycle engine; a load device in magnetic communication with the closed-cycle engine via a shaft; a piston assembly comprising pair of pistons each coupled to the shaft; a stator assembly comprising a magnet carrier supporting one or more magnets and a plurality of windings wrapped circumferentially relative to the piston assembly, a movement limiting assembly at an interface between the magnet carrier and the stator assembly for limiting linear movement of the magnet carrier within the stator assembly.”.
Claims 18-20 are allowable based on their virtue of depending on claim 17.
Claims 2-8 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: In claim 2/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the movement limiting assembly comprises one or more solenoid valves configured to allow high pressure fluid into the stator assembly at the interface between the magnet carrier and the stator assembly.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 3-8 are also allowable for depending on claim 2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights