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 § 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.
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 1-2, 5, 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bucak ("A New Design Concept of Magnetically Levitated 4 Pole Hybrid Mover Driven by linear Motor" – provided by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Bucak teaches an automation system in the form of a planar motor for vertical and/or overhead operation (See Figures 2 and 11), comprising: a stator (defined by stationary part of linear motor of Figure 2, Page 597) comprising at least one stator segment, wherein the stator comprises a plurality of magnetic elements and forms a movement plane; further comprising at least one shuttle (see description of Figure 2 on Page 597, defined by the “mover”) with a magnet unit, wherein the at least one shuttle configured to carry objects; wherein the plurality of magnetic elements electromagnetically interacts with the magnet unit of the at least one shuttle in such a way, that the at least one shuttle lifts off to an operation height from the stator surface and is moveable in at least two directions in the movement plane formed by the stator, wherein the stator has additional ferromagnetic material, which interacts with the magnetic unit of the at least one shuttle and is configured and arranged in such a way that a magnetic attraction force is exerted on the at least one shuttle, such that the magnetic attraction force at least partially compensates for the gravitational force of the at least one shuttle at an operation height of the at least one shuttle (See Page 597, part III, A).
With respect to claim 2, Bucak teaches wherein the ferromagnetic material is configured and arranged in such a way that, in interaction with the magnet unit of the at least one shuttle, the magnetic attraction force exerted on the at least one shuttle at least compensates for the gravitational force of the at least one shuttle, when an electromagnetic interaction between the magnetic elements of the stator and the magnet unit of the at least one shuttle is missing (See Page 597, part III, A).
With respect to claim 5, Bucak teaches wherein the additional ferromagnetic material is implemented as at least one layer which is arranged in or on the stator or stator segment (See Figure 2, Page 597, part III, A).
With respect to claim 9, Bucak teaches wherein the magnet unit of the shuttle comprises permanent magnets (See Figure 2, Page 597, part III, A).
With respect to claim 10, Bucak teaches wherein the magnetic elements of the stator are drive coils (See Figure 2, Page 597, part III, A).
With respect to claim 11, Bucak teaches wherein a lower surface of the stator forms the movement plane (See Page 599-600, Part IV, particularly Figure 12 and associated description).
With respect to claim 13, Bucak teaches wherein the stator is horizontally oriented and a lower surface of the stator forms the movement plane, wherein the at least one shuttle floats below the lower surface of the stator during operation (See Page 599-600, Part IV, particularly Figure 12 and associated description).
With respect to claim 14, Bucak teaches wherein wherein the at least one shuttle floats below the lower surface of the stator during operation (See Page 599-600, Part IV, particularly Figure 12 and associated description).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paweletz (10,312,787).
With respect to claim 1, Paweletz teaches an automation system in the form of a planar motor for vertical and/or overhead operation (See Figure 2-11), comprising: a stator (90) comprising at least one stator segment, wherein the stator (90) comprises a plurality of magnetic elements (4) and forms a movement plane; further comprising at least one shuttle (21) with a magnet unit (2), wherein the at least one shuttle (21) configured to carry objects; wherein the plurality of magnetic elements electromagnetically interacts with the magnet unit of the at least one shuttle (21) in such a way, that the at least one shuttle lifts off to an operation height from the stator surface and is moveable in at least two directions in the movement plane formed by the stator (Col. 5, Lines 2-26; Col. 9, Lines 6-63), wherein the stator (90) has additional ferromagnetic material (5/6/12/13), which interacts with the magnetic unit (2) of the at least one shuttle (21) and is configured and arranged in such a way that a magnetic attraction force is exerted on the at least one shuttle (21), such that the magnetic attraction force at least partially compensates for the gravitational force of the at least one shuttle at an operation height of the at least one shuttle (Col. 1, Lines 35-40).
With respect to claim 2, Paweletz teaches wherein the ferromagnetic material is configured and arranged in such a way that, in interaction with the magnet unit (2) of the at least one shuttle (21), the magnetic attraction force exerted on the at least one shuttle (21) at least compensates for the gravitational force of the at least one shuttle (21), when an electromagnetic interaction between the magnetic elements (4) of the stator (90) and the magnet unit (2) of the at least one shuttle (21) is missing (Col. 1, Lines 35-40).
With respect to claim 4, Paweletz teaches wherein the additional ferromagnetic material (5/6/12/13) is configured and arranged to further compensate for the gravitational force of the object carried by the at least one shuttle (21).
With respect to claim 5, Paweletz teaches wherein the additional ferromagnetic material (5/6/12/13) is implemented as at least one layer which is arranged in or on the stator or stator segment (90).
With respect to claim 7, Paweletz teaches wherein the at least one layer consists of a plurality of thin ferromagnetic layers (12/13) separated by insulation material (Col. 7, Lines 51-60).
With respect to claim 8, Paweletz teaches wherein the additional ferromagnetic material (5/6/12/13) is incorporated in the magnetic elements (4).
With respect to claim 9, Paweletz teaches wherein the magnet unit (2) of the shuttle (21) comprises permanent magnets (Col. 7, Lines 35-39).
With respect to claim 10, Paweletz teaches wherein the magnetic elements (4) of the stator are drive coils.
With respect to claim 12, Paweletz teaches wherein the stator is tilted by any angle between a vertical and/or horizontal orientation (Col. 1, Line 30).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paweletz (10,312,787).
With respect to claim 6, Paweletz teaches the automation system of claim 5.
Paweletz fails to teach wherein a distance between the at least one layer and the stator surface or the surface of the stator segment is adjustable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a distance between the at least one layer and the stator surface or the surface of the stator segment is adjustable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, adjusting a distance between the layer and a stator surface involves routine skill.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or figures in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights