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 § 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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the cavity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,665,708 to Stothers et al.
Re-claim 1, Stothers et al. disclose a vibration isolator, comprising: an inner housing (such as 317) with a cavity that holds a coil spring 304 arranged therein; an outer housing 303 surrounds the inner housing; an actuator 309/315 acts in a vertical direction and is arranged between the inner housing and the outer housing. Coil 309 is between the housing elements.
Re-claims 2 and 3, leaf spring elements 310/318 are arranged between the housing elements along an axial length.
Re-claim 4, the actuator is a magnetic actuator, comprising a coil 309 and a magnet 315.
Re-claim 5, recesses are provided in a working space for the coil and the magnet, see figure 14.
Re-claim 6, the magnet-coil actuator surrounds the coil spring 304.
Re-claim 7, the magnet-coil actuator is ring-shaped, or annular and surrounds the coil spring.
Re-claim 12, an insert (such as 307) protrudes at least partially into the coil spring.
Re-claim 13, the insert is coupled to a load bearing means (such as a bolt threaded to bore 322 and attached to a receiving member 11, see column 14 lines 52-57) is firmly connected to the insert in the axial direction and radial direction.
Re-claim 14, the load bearing means (bolt element) protrudes at least partially into a cavity (bore) of the insert 307, and the load bearing means protrudes at least partially into the coil spring.
Re-claim 15, the load bearing means (bolt element) is coupled at its lower end to the insert, and its upper end is coupled to a load (as part of 11).
Re-claim 16, the load bearing means as a bolt is interpreted as a bending rod.
Re-claim 17, the coil spring is coupled to the inner housing 317 in a horizontal rigid manner via seat 306.
Re-claim 18, the vibration isolator is used to support a load.
Re-claim 19, the vibration isolator is used as a device, capable of handling at least substrates.
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.
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) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stothers et al. in view of EP 3 181 944 A1 to Evers et al.
Re-claim 8, Stothers et al. fail to teach the actuator comprising a plurality of actuators arranged next to one another in an axial direction.
Evers et al. teach a magnet and coil actuator assembly comprising a plurality of actuators (i.e. coil 15 and magnet 16) arranged next to one another in an axial direction. The plurality of actuators provide improved discrete control over the axial movement of the armature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have replaced the single actuator of Stothers et al. with a plurality of actuators of the type taught by Evers et al., thus improving the control of the vibration isolator.
Re-claim 9, Stothers et al. as modified by Evers et al. fail to the spacing between two adjacent magnet-coil pairs as being between 1 and 5 mm. The selection of the spacing between the adjacent magnet-coil pairs is left to the artisan, as this would determine an overall height of the isolator. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having arranged a plurality of adjacent magnet-coil assemblies in Stothers et al. as suggested by Evers et al. to have selected a spacing between two adjacent magnet-coil pairs in the range of 1 to 5 mm, as this would have minimized the overall height of the isolator.
Re-claim 10, the coil 309 of the magnet-coil pair is arranged on an outer wall of the inner housing 317.
Re-claim 11, Stothers et al. fail to teach a width of a gap between the magnet and coil, with the gap being less than 5 mm, and preferably less than 0.5 mm.
Evers et al. teach a gap between a coil and a magnet as being particularly narrow, and specifically less than 0.5 mm (see page 2 paragraph 17, of the translation). This minimal gap reduces the magnetic field path, and reduces the overall size of the isolator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having designed the coil and magnet assembly of Stothers et al. to have looked to Evers et al. and their selection of a gap of less than 0.5 mm, thus minimizing the gap width between the coil and the magnet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nemoto and Hasegawa each teach a vibration isolator.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights