DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The specification, the abstract and the drawings are all acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,555,985 to Kawabata, and in view of USPN 3,784,816 to Abrahamsson.
As to claim 1, Kawabata teaches a rotation sensor configured to detect a specific rotational position of a stepping motor (col. 4: lines 7-14) and generate a detection signal and circuitry configured to measure a time interval of the detection signal, determine whether or not a measurement value corresponding to the time interval between the detection signals coincides with a reference value corresponding to a rotation time between the specific rotational positions determined based on an operation instruction to the stepping motor and transmit operation abnormality information to another device when the measurement value does not coincide with the reference value(col. 15: lines 48-62 & col. 32: lines 66 – col. 33: lines 6).
Kawabata does not teach a monitoring module for monitoring an operation of a stepping motor used in an X-ray diffraction apparatus,
Abrahamsson teaches a monitoring module for monitoring an operation of a stepping motor used in an X-ray diffraction apparatus(col. 3: lines 30-46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Abrahamsson into Kawabata since Kawabata suggests a stepping motor control system and Abrahamsson suggests the beneficial use of a stepping motor used in an X-ray diffraction apparatus in the analogous art of stepping motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Kawabata teaches a stepping motor control system which can be used to improve the stepping motor in the X-ray diffraction apparatus disclosed by Abrahamsson.
As to claim 2, Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson teaches the monitoring module according to claim 1, wherein the rotation sensor is configured to detect the detection signal every time the stepping motor rotates one rotation(Kawabata col. 4: lines 7-14).
As to claim 3, Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson teaches the monitoring module according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine whether or not the measurement value coincides with the reference value by determining whether or not a difference between the measurement value and the reference value is within a predetermined range(Kawabata col. 15: lines 54-62).
As to claim 5, Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson teaches the monitoring module according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to set the number of detection signals included in the time interval between the detection signals(Kawabata col. 15: lines 48-62).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,555,985 to Kawabata in view of USPN 3,784,816 to Abrahamsson, and further in view of USPN 3,609,356 to Schwuttke.
As to claim 4, Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson teaches the monitoring module according to claim 1.
Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson does not teach an apparatus wherein the stepping motor is used for an installation position adjustment mechanism of a goniometer, a sample stage, a variable slit or a detector.
Schwuttke teaches an apparatus wherein the stepping motor is used for an installation position adjustment mechanism (col. 7: lines 12-23) of a goniometer(col. 1: lines 58-62), a sample stage, a variable slit or a detector(col. 5: lines 50-59).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Schwuttke into Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson since Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson suggests a motor control system and Schwuttke suggests the beneficial use of goniometer and detector for a motor control system in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Schwuttke teaches the goniometer and detector for a motor control system which can be used to improve the motor control system disclosed by Kawabata in view of Abrahamsson.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim 1, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims for the following reasons: No prior art of record discloses the features as claimed in the noted claims.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The non-obvious features are:
In comparison with the closest prior art as cited in this Office action and any previous Office actions, no prior art of record discloses the following features as claimed in the following claim limitations:
As per claim 6: Goniometer for controlling positions of an X-ray source, a sample and a detector an adjustment mechanism for adjusting an arrangement of a sample stage supporting the sample and the monitoring module wherein the stepping motor drives at least one of the goniometers or the adjustment mechanism.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 9,748,880 to Mizuo discloses a motor control system.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights