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 Objections
Claim 1, 9, 16 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3, 4, 7 and 12 should be indented one additional time to match the format of the claim previously provided and since these are subsets of the component recited just prior in the claim.
Claim 9, line 3, “including the interface element” is not necessary as it is understood that the claim is stating that there are two or more which would be inclusive of the first one set forth earlier in the claim.
Claim 16, a colon should following “using” in line 4 and “a bearing displacer…” should begin on the next line indented twice to align with “applying a magnetic torque” and “both” in the last line should also be intended one more time. It is also noted that claim 16 appears to include other changes not correctly indicated with strikethroughs and underlining. In the future all changes in the claims must be tracked using the proper markings.
Claim 26, lines 5, 6, 9 and 14 should be indented one additional time to match the format of the claim previously provided and since these are subsets of the component recited just prior in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-37 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.
Regarding claim 1, the second linear actuator/extend is said to “linearly translate, extend, or retract” which reads as if there are three distinct things that the linear actuator could possibly do, however a linear actuator linearly translates, this is the movement, “extend or retract” is what the movement or translation does. However the way the recitation reads in the claim is as if these are three distinct things that the linear actuator might do and it is unclear how a single linear actuator can be configured to do three distinct types of movement. In this case the actuator movement is linear translation, this is either the subset of extending or retracting (or both) but the claim does not clearly make that connection which renders the claim unclear. It is suggested that “extend, or retract” be removed so that this recitation mirrors that of the first linear actuator as the later recitation “to contact or separate from” would cover extension or retraction.
Claims 16, 17 and 26 include the same recitation as claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 9/4/26, with respect to the previous prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims based on the prior art has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 26, the prior art of record, while disclosing a similar system, does not discloses a configuration that uses a linear actuator wherein the actuator linearly translates one of the bearing assembly components (see remarks page 13) or the use of an electromagnet to apply a magnetic torque, to engage the bearing arrangement. The use of linear actuators with tracks or electromagnetic configurations was previously indicated allowable, Applicant has captured a portion of the linear actuator claims in the independent claims and has argued that the recitations added to the independent claims renders the claim distinct. The amendment to define the displacers as linear actuators in combination with the argument that this requires physical movement of the parts in and out of contact, not just a pressing or deflection like in the prior art, overcomes the prior art of record.
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 JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights