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
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (Pub # US 2002/0050923 A1), and further in view of Moon et al. (Pub # US 2021/0295739 A1).
Consider claim 1, Petersen teaches an information output apparatus comprising: an expression unit (42, Fig. 1) moving in at least one direction to be detected by a user [0036]; a movement unit (36, Fig. 1) disposed at one side of the expression unit, formed to be rotatable in at least one direction, and rotated to move the expression unit in at least one direction [0036]; a driving force (46, Fig. 1) providing unit disposed at one side of the movement unit and configured to provide a driving force to the movement unit [0037].
Petersen does not teach a driving force limiting member formed to reduce or restrict the driving force generated by the driving force providing unit from being transmitted in a direction that is different from a direction from the driving force providing unit to the expression unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Moon et al. teaches a driving force limiting member (steel honeycomb) (808, Fig. 8) formed to reduce or restrict the driving force generated by the driving force providing unit from being transmitted in a direction that is different from a direction from the driving force providing unit to the expression unit [0077] for the benefit of shield and reduce contact between the expression unit and movement unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a driving force limiting member formed to reduce or restrict the driving force generated by the driving force providing unit from being transmitted in a direction that is different from a direction from the driving force providing unit to the expression unit as shown in Moon et al., in Petersen device for the benefit of shield and reduce contact between the expression unit and movement unit.
Consider claim 2, Petersen teaches the information output apparatus, wherein the driving force providing comprises a driving support (ferrous cylinder) (104, Fig. 6) formed to extend in one direction, and a coil formed to be wound around the driving support [0045-0046].
Petersen does not teach the driving force limiting member is disposed to overlap at least a portion of the coil.
In the same field of endeavor, Moon et al. teaches the driving force limiting member (shielding assembly) is disposed to overlap at least a portion of the coil [0096] for the benefit of isolate neighbor actuators to prevent inadvertent actuation and reduce losses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the driving force limiting member is disposed to overlap at least a portion of the coil as shown in Moon et al., in Petersen device for the benefit of isolate neighbor actuators to prevent inadvertent actuation and reduce losses.
Consider claim 3, Petersen teaches the similar invention.
Petersen does not teach wherein the driving force limiting member is formed to have a height in a longitudinal direction of the driving support.
In the same field of endeavor, Moon et al. teaches wherein the driving force limiting member (honeycomb) is formed to have a height (thickness) in a longitudinal direction (actuator axis) of the driving support [0096] for the benefit of providing channel structure for the moving actuator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the driving force limiting member is formed to have a height in a longitudinal direction of the driving support as shown in Moon et al., in Petersen device for the benefit of providing channel structure for the moving actuator.
Consider claim 4, Petersen teaches the information output apparatus including movement unit (rotatable positioning member).
Petersen does not teach wherein the driving force limiting member is formed to have a height up to a position at which at least a portion of the driving force limiting member overlaps the movement unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Moon et al. teaches wherein the driving force limiting member (honeycomb) is formed to have a height up to a position at which at least a portion of the driving force limiting member (honeycomb) overlaps the movement unit (actuator) [0077] for the benefit of providing the shielding to the actuator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the driving force limiting member is formed to have a height up to a position at which at least a portion of the driving force limiting member overlaps the movement unit as shown in Moon et al., in Petersen device for the benefit of providing the shielding to the actuator.
Consider claim 5, Petersen clearly shown and discloses the information output apparatus, wherein the movement unit (36, Fig. 1) is formed to rotate in at least one direction by a magnetic field generated from the coil when an electric field is applied to the coil [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686