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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 13, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 15-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the non-final Office action mailed May 15, 2026.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 depends ultimately from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the braking means includes an electric conductor” and “the traveling body includes a magnet.” Claim 5 recites the opposite: “the traveling body includes the electric conductor and the braking means includes an electromagnet as the magnet.” It is unclear in what sense the traveling means “includes the electric conductor” which is part of the braking means, and in what sense the braking means “includes an electromagnet as the magnet” which is part of the traveling means. The limitations of claim 5 appear to contradict the limitations of claim 1, from which it depends, which creates significant confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of claim 5.1
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiura (JP H1199057 A, hereinafter Sugiura).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura discloses a deceleration mechanism (including magnet 20 with thickened conductive plate at 2a, 2b in Fig. 4, ¶ 18; or conductive metal plate 26 in Fig. 5, ¶ 19) comprising:
a traveling body (movable member 11) that travels on a predetermined route (along curtain rail 2); and
braking means (thickened plate sections at 2a, 2b in Fig. 4, ¶ 18; or conductive metal plate 26 in Fig. 5, ¶ 19) that decelerates the traveling body in a deceleration section set in the route (¶¶ 18-19),
wherein the braking means includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 17-19),
wherein the traveling body (11) includes a magnet (20) that generates an eddy current in the electric conductor (¶¶ 17-19), and
wherein the braking means including the electric conductor is provided only in the deceleration section (“the non-magnetic conductive plate is provided at a portion corresponding to an opening/closing end of the curtain,” ¶ 6).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Imai (US Patent No. 5,388,526, hereinafter Imai).
Regarding claim 2, Sugiura teaches the claimed deceleration mechanism substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Sugiura does not teach an airtightly-configured pipe inside which the traveling body travels while receiving energy from a fluid flowing in the pipe. However, Imai teaches a transport mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising a traveling body (inner slider 2) that is a means that travels on a predetermined route inside an airtightly-configured pipe (tubular guide way 1) while receiving energy from a fluid (“pressurized air,” col. 3:12-16) flowing in the pipe (1). The traveling body (2) includes a magnet (magnets 5; col. 3:22-32) for cooperation with a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-53) that transports material outside the pipe 91). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the deceleration mechanism of Sugiura could be advantageously applied to the transport mechanism of Imai. In particular, Sugiura teaches that the eddy current brake facilitates speed control without relying on a complicated electric circuit, which is expensive and high-maintenance. See Sugiura ¶¶ 2-3.2 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the advantages of Sugiura to the system of Imai by combining the eddy current braking means of Sugiura with the traveling body, pipe, and fluid of Imai, so that the speed of the traveling body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claim 3, Sugiura teaches the claimed deceleration mechanism substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Sugiura does not teach that the traveling body travels on the route on a basis of a repelling or attracting force between the magnet and a magnetic material moving along the route outside the route. However, Imai teaches a transport mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising a traveling body (outer slider 10) including a magnet (magnets 12, col. 4:12-15), wherein the traveling body (10) travels on a predetermined route (defined by guide way 1) on the basis of a repelling or attracting force acting between the magnet (12) and a magnetic material (magnets 5 of inner slider 2) moving along the route outside the route (i.e., in the tubular guide way 1, which is outside the route of the outer slider 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the deceleration mechanism of Sugiura could be advantageously applied to the transport mechanism of Imai.3 In particular, Sugiura teaches that the eddy current brake facilitates consistent speed control without relying on a complicated electric circuit, which is expensive and high-maintenance. See Sugiura ¶¶ 2-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the advantages of Sugiura to the system of Imai by combining the eddy current braking means of Sugiura with the traveling body and moving magnetic material of Imai, so that the speed of the traveling body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the modified Sugiura teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 2 and 3, respectively. Sugiura further teaches the braking means may be “detachably attached” to adjust the eddy current braking force. Sugiura ¶ 12; see also Sugiura ¶ 19. The detachable conductive metal plate of Sugiura is understood to be a braking means that is movable between a deceleration position where the braking means is close to the route to enable deceleration of the traveling body due to the eddy current (i.e., when the non-conductive metal plate is attached), and a non-deceleration position where the braking means is away from the route to disable deceleration of the traveling body due to the eddy current (i.e., when the non-conductive metal plate is detached).
Claims 6, 8-11, 15-18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Sugiura.
Regarding claim 6, Imai discloses a mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a moving body (inner slider 2; col. 3:12-32) that has a first magnet (magnets 5) and that moves on a first route (inside tubular guide way 1); and
a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-4:15) that has a magnetic material (magnets 12) repelling or attracting the first magnet (5) and that is transported on a second route (on outside of tubular guide way 1) on a basis of a magnetic force acting between the first magnet (5) and the magnetic material (12; col. 4:4-11).
Imai does not teach a braking means comprising an electric conductor arranged in a deceleration section on the first route. However, to solve the problem of controlling the speed of a body moving along a route without relying on a complicated electric circuit, Sugiura teaches a deceleration mechanism (Fig. 2) comprising a braking means (thickened conductive plates at 2a, 2b in Fig. 4, ¶ 18; or detachable conductive plate 26 in Fig. 5, ¶ 19) arranged in a deceleration section set on the route that decelerates the moving body (e.g., “to realize the slow stop operation in which the speed is reduced to stop near the open end or the closed end,” ¶ 11), wherein the braking means includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 18-19) in which an eddy current is generated due to movement of a first magnet of the moving body (¶¶ 17-19), wherein the braking means including the electric conductor is provided only in the deceleration section (“the non-magnetic conductive plate is provided at a portion corresponding to an opening/closing end of the curtain,” ¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imai by arranging an eddy current braking means comprising an electric conductor as taught by Sugiura only in a deceleration section on the first route so that an eddy current is generated in the electric conductor of the braking means due to movement of the first magnet, so that the speed of the moving body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claim 8, Imai discloses a mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a moving body (inner slider 2; col. 3:12-32) that has a first magnetic material (magnets 5) and that moves on a first route (inside tubular guide way 1); and
a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-4:15) that has a second magnetic material (magnets 12) repelling or attracting the first magnetic material (5) and that is transported on a second route (on outside of tubular guide way 1) on a basis of a magnetic force acting between the first magnetic material (5) and the second magnetic material (12), wherein at least one of the first magnetic material (5) and the second magnetic material (12) is a magnet (col. 3:23, 4:13).
Imai does not teach a braking means comprising an electric conductor arranged in a deceleration section between and in the first and second routes that decelerates the moving body or the transport body. However, to solve the problem of controlling the speed of a body moving along a route without relying on a complicated electric circuit, Sugiura teaches a deceleration mechanism (Fig. 2) comprising a braking means (thickened conductive plates at 2a, 2b in Fig. 4, ¶ 18; or detachable conductive plate 26 in Fig. 5, ¶ 19) arranged in a deceleration section located on the route that decelerates the moving body (e.g., “to realize the slow stop operation in which the speed is reduced to stop near the open end or the closed end,” ¶ 11), wherein the braking means (6) includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 18-19) in which an eddy current is generated due to movement of a magnet of the traveling body (¶¶ 17-19), wherein the braking means including the electric conductor is provided only in the deceleration section (“the non-magnetic conductive plate is provided at a portion corresponding to an opening/closing end of the curtain,” ¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imai by arranging an eddy current braking means comprising an electric conductor as taught by Sugiura only in a deceleration section between and in the first and second routes of Imai that decelerates the moving body or the transport body so that an eddy current is generated in an electric conductor due to movement of the magnet, so that the speed of the moving body and transport body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claim 9, Imai discloses a mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a moving body (inner slider 2; col. 3:12-32) that has a first magnet (magnets 5) and that moves on a first route (inside tubular guide way 1); and
a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-4:15) that has a second magnet (magnets 12) repelling or attracting the first magnet (5) and that is transported on a second route (on outside of tubular guide way 1) on a basis of a magnetic force acting between the first magnet (5) and the second magnet (12).
Imai does not teach a braking means comprising an electric conductor arranged in a deceleration section between and in the first and second routes that decelerates the moving body and the transport body. However, to solve the problem of controlling the speed of a body traveling along a route without relying on a complicated electric circuit, Sugiura teaches a braking means (thickened conductive plates at 2a, 2b in Fig. 4, ¶ 18; or detachable conductive plate 26 in Fig. 5, ¶ 19) arranged in a deceleration section located on the route that decelerates the traveling body (e.g., “to realize the slow stop operation in which the speed is reduced to stop near the open end or the closed end,” ¶ 11), wherein the braking means includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 18-19) in which an eddy current is generated due to movement of a magnet of the traveling body ¶¶ 17-19), wherein the braking means including the electric conductor is provided only in the deceleration section (“the non-magnetic conductive plate is provided at a portion corresponding to an opening/closing end of the curtain,” ¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imai by arranging an eddy current braking means comprising an electric conductor as taught by Sugiura only in a deceleration section between and in the first and second routes of Imai that decelerates the moving body and the transport body so that an eddy current is generated in an electric conductor due to movement of the magnets, so that the speed of the moving body and transport body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claim 10, Imai discloses a mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a moving body (inner slider 2; col. 3:12-32) that has a first magnetic material (magnets 5) and that moves on a first route (inside tubular guide way 1); and
a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-4:15) that has a second magnetic material (magnets 12) repelling or attracting the first magnetic material (5) and that is transported on a second route (on outside of tubular guide way 1) on a basis of a magnetic force acting between the first magnetic material (5) and the second magnetic material (12).
Imai does not teach a braking means arranged in a deceleration section in the second route, with an electric conductor and a braking magnet respectively included with the braking means and the transport body. However, to solve the problem of controlling the speed of a body moving along a route without relying on a complicated electric circuit, Sugiura teaches a braking means (thickened conductive plates at 2a, 2b in Fig. 4, ¶ 18; or detachable conductive plate 26 in Fig. 5, ¶ 19) arranged in a deceleration section located on the route that decelerates the traveling body (e.g., “to realize the slow stop operation in which the speed is reduced to stop near the open end or the closed end,” ¶ 11), wherein the braking means includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 17-18), and the moving body (mover 11) includes a braking magnet (permanent magnet 20) that generates an eddy current in the electric conductor (“As the mover 11 travels, an eddy current is generated in the side wall plate 6 by the magnetic flux of the permanent magnet 20 attached to the connecting plate 19, and a predetermined braking force acts on the mover 11,” ¶ 17), wherein the braking means including the electric conductor is provided only in the deceleration section (“the non-magnetic conductive plate is provided at a portion corresponding to an opening/closing end of the curtain,” ¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imai by arranging an eddy current braking means comprising an electric conductor as taught by Sugiura only in a deceleration section in the second route and braking magnet as taught by Sugiura on the transport body, such that the braking magnet generates an eddy current in the electric conductor, so that the speed of the moving body and transport body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claim 18, Imai discloses a mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a moving body (inner slider 2; col. 3:12-32) that has a first magnetic material (magnets 5) and that moves on a first route (inside tubular guide way 1); and
a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-4:15) that has a second magnetic material (magnets 12) repelling or attracting the first magnetic material (5) and that is transported on a second route (on outside of tubular guide way 1) on a basis of a magnetic force acting between the first magnetic material (5) and the second magnetic material (12); and
a space (defined by a thickness of the wall of the non-magnetic guideway 1, Figs. 1-2) that is formed between the first route and the second route and that has a spacing enabling the magnetic force to act between the first magnetic material and the second magnetic material (col. 2:59-64, 4:4-11);
wherein at least one of the first magnetic material (5) and the second magnetic material (12) is a magnet (col. 3:23, 4:13).
Imai does not teach a braking means comprising an electric conductor arranged in the space in a deceleration section that decelerates the moving body or the transport body. However, to solve the problem of controlling the speed of a body moving along a route without relying on a complicated electric circuit, Sugiura teaches a deceleration mechanism comprising a braking means (non-magnetic conductive sidewall plate 6, Figs. 2 and 4; or 26, Figs. 1 and 5) arranged in a deceleration section set at a predetermined place on the route that decelerates the moving body (e.g., “to realize the slow stop operation in which the speed is reduced to stop near the open end or the closed end,” ¶ 11), wherein the braking means (6) includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 18-19) in which an eddy current is generated due to movement of a magnet of the traveling body (¶¶ 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imai by arranging an eddy current braking means comprising an electric conductor as taught by Sugiura in the space of Imai (e.g., as part of, or an attachment to, the wall of the guideway 1 of Imai which is between the transport body and the moving body) in a deceleration section set at a predetermined place on the first and second routes of Imai that decelerates the moving body or the transport body so that an eddy current is generated in the electric conductor due to movement of the magnet, so that the speed of the moving body and transport body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claim 20, Imai discloses a mechanism (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a moving body (inner slider 2; col. 3:12-32) that has a first magnet (magnets 5) and that moves on a first route (inside tubular guide way 1); and
a transport body (outer slider 10; col. 3:50-4:15) that has a second magnet (magnets 12) repelling or attracting the first magnet (5) and that is transported on a second route (on outside of tubular guide way 1) on a basis of a magnetic force acting between the first magnet (5) and the second magnet (12); and
a space (defined by a thickness of the wall of the non-magnetic guideway 1, Figs. 1-2) that is formed between the first route and the second route and that has a spacing enabling the magnetic force to act between the first magnet and the second magnet (col. 2:59-64, 4:4-11).
Imai does not teach a braking means comprising an electric conductor arranged in the space in a deceleration section that decelerates the moving body and the transport body. However, to solve the problem of controlling the speed of a body moving along a route without relying on a complicated electric circuit, Sugiura teaches a deceleration mechanism comprising a braking means (non-magnetic conductive sidewall plate 6, Figs. 2 and 4; or 26, Figs. 1 and 5) arranged in a deceleration section set at a predetermined place on the route that decelerates the moving body (e.g., “to realize the slow stop operation in which the speed is reduced to stop near the open end or the closed end,” ¶ 11), wherein the braking means (6) includes an electric conductor (“non-magnetic conductive metal plate,” ¶¶ 6, 11, 17-19) in which an eddy current is generated due to movement of a magnet of the traveling body (¶¶ 17-19), the eddy current decelerating the moving body (¶ 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imai by arranging an eddy current braking means comprising an electric conductor as taught by Sugiura in the space of Imai (e.g., as part of, or an attachment to, the wall of the guideway 1 of Imai which is between the transport body and the moving body) in a deceleration section set at a predetermined place on the first and second routes of Imai that decelerates both the moving body and the transport body (since the moving body and the transport body of Imai each include a magnet and move together) so that an eddy current is generated in the electric conductor due to movement of the magnets, so that the speed of the moving body and transport body can be reliably and inexpensively controlled.
Regarding claims 11, 15-17, 22, and 23, the modified Imai teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 6, 8-10, 18, and 20 respectively. Imai further discloses a pipe (tubular guide way 1) that forms the first route, and a fluid (“pressurized air,” col. 3:12-16) that flows in the pipe (1), wherein the moving body (2) travels in the pipe (1) while receiving energy from the fluid flowing in the pipe (col. 3:12-16).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Sugiura, in further view of Oh (KR 2013-0009904 A, hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, the modified Imai teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 18 and 20, respectively. Imai and Sugiura do not teach the braking means being configured to switch between a state inserted into the space to enable deceleration and a state away from the space to disable the deceleration. However, to solve the problem of adjusting transfer speed of a substrate within a transport system, Oh teaches a deceleration mechanism (Figs. 11-14, ¶¶ 58-70) comprising braking means (acceleration/deceleration unit 500) configured to switch between a state where the braking means is inserted into a space to enable deceleration of a moving body due to an eddy current (“When the moving magnet 510 is moved toward the tray lower rail 210, an eddy current is generated in the tray lower rail 210, thereby generating a braking force,” ¶ 62), and a state where the braking means is away from the space to disable the deceleration (“Conversely, when the moving magnet 510 is moved in the directed away from the tray lower rail 210, the tray 100 can be transported without restriction by the braking force,” ¶ 62). See also ¶ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Imai by configuring the braking means to switch between a state where the braking means is inserted into the space to enable deceleration of the moving body and the transport body due to the eddy current, and a state where the braking means is away from the space to disable the deceleration, as taught by Oh, in order to permit unrestricted movement of the moving body and the transport body through the deceleration section when deceleration is not required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Sugiura does not teach the braking means being provided only in a deceleration section, the examiner maintains that this feature is taught in ¶ 6 of Sugiura, where Sugiura states that “the non-magnetic conductive metal plate is provided at a portion corresponding to an opening/closing end of the curtain.” Sugiura describes two examples of implementing a braking means at the opening and closing ends: one in Fig. 4, where the braking means consists of thickened portions (2a, 2b) of the side wall to accomplish braking at the opening and closing ends and optionally in the center (see ¶ 18); and the other in Fig. 5, where the braking means consists of a detachable plate (26) that is attached “to both ends and the center of the curtain rail” (¶ 19).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that the absence of any prior art rejection for clam 5 is due to the uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the contradictory claim language. “[W]here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” MPEP § 2173.06, subsection II.
2 It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sugiura is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, which Applicant has broadly defined as the field of deceleration mechanisms. See Applicant’s specification, ¶ 1. Moreover, even if Sugiura were not considered to be in the same field of endeavor, Sugiura is reasonably pertinent to the deceleration problem confronting the inventor. Compare Applicant’s specification at ¶ 10 (“a traveling body can be decelerated in a deceleration section with a simple configuration”), and Sugiura ¶ 23 (“it is possible to inexpensively provide a linear motor type curtain opening/closing device that does not break down or the braking position does not change”).
3 See fn. 2 above.
Prosecution Insights