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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
While it is understood a capacitor has a capacitance, the specification does not specifically disclose this relationship. The specification needs to disclose this relationship to provide support for the limitation added to claims 1 and 3.
While it is believed that Figure 2 appears to show the “resistor being connected in series with the wire”, the specification needs to provide support for this limitation if the Figures provide support for this disclosure. If this is not shown in the Figures and there is no other support, this disclosure could be new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The formula added to both claims is blurry (probably a result from the submission process).
PNG
media_image1.png
76
102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claims 1 and 3, the phrase “the wire in the electromagnet having an inductance” does not appear to be supported and is new matter. The abstract and earlier in the claims disclose the electromagnet has the inductance but there does not appear to be any support in the original specification providing support for the wire having the inductance. There does not appear to be support for the electromagnet and the wire each having a separate inductance which is also new matter. The specification discloses the electromagnet has the inductance but makes no mention of the wire being the part of the electromagnet being the structure to have the inductance.
With regards to claims 1 and 3, the phrases “the electromagnet and the capacitor forming an LC network” and “the LC network having a natural frequency” do not appear to be supported and are new matter. Lines 4-6 of paragraph [0025] discloses the natural frequency and the equation but there is no support of “forming an LC network” or “the LC network having a natural frequency”.
With regards to claims 2 and 4, the phrase “resistor connected in series with the wire increasing the effective resistance of the wire” does not appear to be supported and is new matter. The original specification does not appear to provide any support for the resistor being connected to the wire allows for the “increasing” function to take place, “the effective resistance” or “increasing the effective resistance”.
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 1-4 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 3, the phrase “the wire…having an inductance” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for the wire to have an inductance. Also, it is unclear if the wire inductance represents the same or a different inductance with regards to electromagnet inductance on lines 8-9 of claim 1 and lines 7-8 of claim 3. As written, there are two separate inductances which does not appear to be supported. The specification discloses the electromagnet has the inductance but makes no mention of the wire being the part of the electromagnet being the structure to have the inductance.
With regards to claims 1 and 3, the phrase “forming an LC network” is unclear. What structure allows for the network to be “formed”? If the wire has the inductance, how is the wire not included in the forming of the LC network? The specification does not appear to disclose a “network” which makes the limitation unclear.
With regards to claims 1 and 3, the phrase “natural frequency” is unclear. Does the reciprocating of the armature play a role in the definition of the natural frequency? If so, the claim and the specification needs to be amended to disclose this relationship.
With regards to claims 2 and 4, the phrase “increasing the effective resistance of the wire” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by “increasing” and what is the “increase” in relation to? Is the effective resistance of the clipper increased or does this relationship have an increased effective resistance to the prior art? What structure allows for this increase?
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation "the effective resistance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-4 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 2267903 Y (Sun). Please see the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (received via I.D.S. on 10-15-24), European Search Report (received via I.D.S. on 5-19-26), and the First Office Action corresponding to Chinese Patent Application No. 202380048874.1 (received via I.D.S. on 9-15-26) which includes a detailed rejection utilizing CN 2267903 Y for claims 1-4. The rejections have been adopted by the Examiner.
CN 2267903 Y also discloses the amendments including the wire in the electromagnet having an inductance (320), the capacitor having a capacitance (C), the electromagnet and the capacitor forming an LC network (Figs. 1-3), the network having a natural frequency (Figs. 1-3) meeting the equation (CN 2267903 Y incorporates all of the variables and can include any constant to allow for the equation to be satisfied), and a resistor connected in series with the wire increasing the effective resistance of the wire (Figs. 2 and 3).
Claims 1-4 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2006/033820. Please see the European Search Report (received via I.D.S. on 5-19-26) which includes a detailed rejection utilizing WO 2006/033820 for claims 1-4. The rejections have been adopted by the Examiner.
WO 2006/033820 also discloses the amendments including the wire in the electromagnet having an inductance (418), the capacitor having a capacitance (110), the electromagnet and the capacitor forming an LC network (Fig. 6), the network having a natural frequency (Fig. 6) meeting the equation (WO 2006/033820 incorporates all of the variables and can include any constant to allow for the equation to be satisfied), and a resistor connected in series with the wire increasing the effective resistance of the wire (Fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-11-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are made as best understood.
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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (571)272-4502. 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.
05 October 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
