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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
Claim 1 Ln 3 states the claim limitation “motion conversion device”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “configured to convert rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “The motion conversion device 200 converts a rotational motion of the rotor 130 into a linear motion. In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the motion conversion device 200 may include a screw 210 and a nut 220”, described in the specification Pg 7 Ln 20-22 and equivalents thereof.
Claim 12 Ln 3 states the claim limitation “motion conversion device”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “configured to convert rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “The motion conversion device 200 converts a rotational motion of the rotor 130 into a linear motion. In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the motion conversion device 200 may include a screw 210 and a nut 220”, described in the specification Pg 7 Ln 20-22 and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 Ln 4, please amend to --support [[the]] another side--.
Claim 9 Ln 1-2, please amend to --The fluid pressure supply apparatus of claim [[1]] 8, wherein the first magnet sensor is connected to the connector assembly--, to clear up the antecedent basis issue with ‘the connector assembly’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 3, 10-11 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 Ln 1-2 states the limitation "the first magnet is disposed inside the piston”. It is unclear how the first magnet is “inside the piston” when claim 1 Ln 12 previously states “a first magnet disposed on the piston”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as in the piston.
Claim 10 Ln 2 states the limitation "disposed on a rotation shaft of the rotor”. Claim 1 previously states “a motion conversion device”. The motion conversion device was interpreted under 112(f) as ‘a screw 210 and a nut 220… and equivalents thereof. When taken in light of the specification, it is unclear if the rotation shaft is the same as or different from the screw (or equivalent thereof). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as the same as.
Claim 11 is dependent upon claim 10.
Claim 14 Ln 3-4 states the limitation "the first magnet is disposed… in the piston body”. It is unclear how the first magnet is “in the piston body” when claim 12 Ln 12 previously states “a first magnet disposed on the piston”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as in the piston.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Youngsong US 20190100172 A1,hereinafter Lee, in view of Masson, Olivier et al. US 20040164611 A1, hereinafter Masson, as evidenced by LOGACHARI JAGANATHAN et al. DE 102021202710 A1, hereinafter Logachari. A machine translation of Logachari is provided and used throughout for citation call outs. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (fluid pressure supply apparatuses); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (piston position determination). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (Fig. 1) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a motor (110) including a stator (112) and a rotor (113);
a motion conversion device (122/124) configured to convert a rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion [0041-0043];
a piston (150) which is connected to the motion conversion device and performs a linear motion [0040];
a housing (140) which includes a cylinder (141), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0044];
a guide (143b) extending in a longitudinal direction of the cylinder and inserted into the piston and in which a fluid pressed by the piston is disposed in a space (141) between an inner circumferential surface of the cylinder and an outer circumferential surface of the guide [0053-0054];
a second magnet (154) which is connected to the rotor, disposed on a rotation shaft of the rotor, and rotated along with the rotor [0062]; and
a second magnet sensor (104) which detects a change in a magnetic field according to the rotation of the second magnet [0062].
Lee fails to explicitly state that the apparatus further comprises:
a first magnet disposed on the piston; and
a first magnet sensor which is disposed on the guide and detects a change in a magnetic field of the first magnet according to the linear motion of the piston.
Masson discloses (Fig. 3) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a piston (4) which performs a linear motion [0034];
a housing (2) which includes a cylinder (3), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0034],
a first magnet (19) disposed on the piston (depicted as residing on an internal surface of (4)); and
a first magnet sensor (9)which is disposed on the guide and detects a change in a magnetic field of the first magnet according to the linear motion of the piston [0048].
Logachari discloses (Fig. 1) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a motor (144) including a rotor (146);
a motion conversion device (148/150) configured to convert a rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion [0040];
a piston (126) which is connected to the motion conversion device and performs a linear motion [0037];
a housing (128) which includes a cylinder (122), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0037],
a first sensor system which detects linear motion of the piston “sensor system” [0050]; and
a second sensor system which detects a rotation of the rotor “sensor system” [0050].
Logachari further discloses it is beneficial to have both the first and second sensor systems to verify or check the sensed positions of the piston against each other [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lee, by providing the first magnet and magnet sensor, as taught by Masson, for the purpose of verifying or checking the second sensor’s sensed piston position as evidenced by Logachari
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lee, by providing the first magnet and magnet sensor, as taught by Masson, for the purpose of verifying or checking the second sensor’s sensed piston position as evidenced by Logachari To further clarify the modification, Lee discloses a supply apparatus that already comprises the second sensor system for detecting rotation of the rotor. Masson discloses a first sensor system for detecting linear motion of the piston. Logachari discloses that is beneficial to have both. This results in Lee being modified to add the first sensor system.
Regarding claim 2, Masson discloses (Fig. 3) the first magnet (19) has a ring shape (depicted as ring shaped).
Regarding claim 3, as far as is determinate, Masson discloses (Fig. 3) the first magnet (19) is disposed inside the piston (depicted as inside an outer circumferential surface of (4)).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses (Fig. 1) the piston (150) includes a hollow piston body (depicted as hollow)
Masson discloses (Fig. 3) the piston (4) includes a hollow piston body (depicted as hollow) and a seating portion formed to be radially recessed outward in an inner circumferential surface of the piston body (the depicted annular groove into which (19) is seated); and the first magnet is disposed on the seating portion ((19) is depicted as seated in the seat).
Regarding claim 5, Masson discloses (Fig. 3) one side (at least the right side as depicted) of the first magnet (19) is supported by a step (interpreted as the transition from the inner circumferential surface to the seat) of the seating portion.
Regarding claim 10, as far as is determinate, Lee discloses (Fig. 1) further comprising a second magnet (154) which is connected to the rotor, disposed on a rotation shaft of the rotor, and rotated along with the rotor [0062].
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Odaira; Atsushi et al. US 10780865 B2, hereinafter Odaira, as evidenced by Logachari. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (fluid pressure supply apparatuses); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (piston position determination). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (Fig. 1) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a motor (110) including a stator (112) and a rotor (113);
a motion conversion device (122/124) configured to convert a rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion [0041-0043];
a piston (150) which is connected to the motion conversion device and performs a linear motion [0040];
a housing (140) which includes a cylinder (141), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0044];
a guide (143b) extending in a longitudinal direction of the cylinder and inserted into the piston and in which a fluid pressed by the piston is disposed in a space (141) between an inner circumferential surface of the cylinder and an outer circumferential surface of the guide [0053-0054];
a second magnet (154) which is connected to the rotor, disposed on a rotation shaft of the rotor, and rotated along with the rotor [0062]; and
a second magnet sensor (104) which detects a change in a magnetic field according to the rotation of the second magnet [0062].
Lee fails to explicitly state that the apparatus further comprises:
a first magnet disposed on the piston; and
a first magnet sensor which is disposed on the guide and detects a change in a magnetic field of the first magnet according to the linear motion of the piston.
Odaira discloses (Fig. 1-4) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a piston (10) which performs a linear motion (depicted left/right motion);
a housing (4) which includes a cylinder (12), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion,
a first magnet (70) disposed on the piston (depicted as residing on an external surface of (10)); and
a first magnet sensor (54) which is disposed on the guide and detects a change in a magnetic field of the first magnet according to the linear motion of the piston (Col 6 Ln 11-28).
Logachari discloses (Fig. 1) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a motor (144) including a rotor (146);
a motion conversion device (148/150) configured to convert a rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion [0040];
a piston (126) which is connected to the motion conversion device and performs a linear motion [0037];
a housing (128) which includes a cylinder (122), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0037],
a first sensor system which detects linear motion of the piston “sensor system” [0050]; and
a second sensor system which detects a rotation of the rotor “sensor system” [0050].
Logachari further discloses it is beneficial to have both the first and second sensor systems to verify or check the sensed positions of the piston against each other [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lee, by providing the first magnet and magnet sensor, as taught by Odaira, for the purpose of verifying or checking the second sensor’s sensed piston position as evidenced by Logachari To further clarify the modification, Lee discloses a supply apparatus that already comprises the second sensor system for detecting rotation of the rotor. Odaira discloses a first sensor system for detecting linear motion of the piston. Logachari discloses that is beneficial to have both. This results in Lee being modified to add the first sensor system.
Regarding claim 7, Odaira discloses (Fig. 1-4) the first magnet (70) is disposed on an outer surface of the piston (10, depicted as located on the outer surface of (10)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-9 are 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 5. Lee further discloses (Fig. 1) further comprising a guide bush (162) which is disposed between the inner circumferential surface of the piston body and the outer circumferential surface of the guide (depicted as interfacing with these surfaces), guides the linear motion of the piston [0058].
Lee fails to disclose that the guide bush is disposed to support the other side of the first magnet.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the guide bush and first magnet. Although the modified device of Lee/Masson discloses a guide bush and first magnet, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee to incorporate the details of the guide bush is disposed to support the other side of the first magnet, along with the other claimed components of the apparatus. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the apparatus further comprising a connector assembly disposed in the guide. Instead, Lee discloses a connector assembly (103) disposed exterior to the guide.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the guide and the connector assembly. Although the modified device of Lee/Masson discloses a guide and connector assembly, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee to incorporate the details of the apparatus further comprising a connector assembly disposed in the guide, along with the other claimed components of the apparatus. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, as far as is determinate, Lee discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 5. Lee further discloses (Fig. 1) the apparatus further comprising a second magnet sensor (104) which detects a change in a magnetic field according to the rotation of the second magnet [0062].
Lee fails to disclose that the second magnet sensor is disposed on the guide. Instead, Lee discloses the second magnet sensor is disposed outside the guide.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the second magnet sensor and guide. Although the modified device of Lee/Masson discloses a guide and second magnet sensor, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee to incorporate the details of the second magnet sensor is disposed on the guide, along with the other claimed components of the apparatus. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses (Fig. 1) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a motor (110) including a stator (112) and a rotor (113);
a motion conversion device (122/124) configured to convert a rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion [0041-0043];
a piston (150) which is connected to the motion conversion device and performs a linear motion [0040];
a housing (140) which includes a cylinder (141), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0044];
a guide (143b) extending in a longitudinal direction of the cylinder and inserted into the piston and in which a fluid pressed by the piston is disposed in a space (141) between an inner circumferential surface of the cylinder and an outer circumferential surface of the guide [0053-0054];
a second magnet (154) which is connected to the rotor, disposed on a rotation shaft of the rotor, and rotated along with the rotor [0062]; and
a second magnet sensor (104) which detects a change in a magnetic field according to the rotation of the second magnet [0062].
Lee fails to explicitly state that the apparatus further comprises:
a first magnet disposed on the piston; and
a first magnet sensor which is disposed on the guide and detects a change in a magnetic field of the first magnet according to the linear motion of the piston.
Masson discloses (Fig. 3) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a piston (4) which performs a linear motion [0034];
a housing (2) which includes a cylinder (3), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0034],
a first magnet (19) disposed on the piston (depicted as residing on an internal surface of (4)); and
a first magnet sensor (9)which is disposed on the guide and detects a change in a magnetic field of the first magnet according to the linear motion of the piston [0048].
Logachari discloses (Fig. 1) a fluid pressure supply apparatus comprising:
a motor (144) including a rotor (146);
a motion conversion device (148/150) configured to convert a rotational motion of the rotor into a linear motion [0040];
a piston (126) which is connected to the motion conversion device and performs a linear motion [0037];
a housing (128) which includes a cylinder (122), in which the piston is disposed to perform the linear motion [0037],
a first sensor system which detects linear motion of the piston “sensor system” [0050]; and
a second sensor system which detects a rotation of the rotor “sensor system” [0050].
Logachari further discloses it is beneficial to have both the first and second sensor systems to verify or check the sensed positions of the piston against each other [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lee, by providing the first magnet and magnet sensor, as taught by Masson, for the purpose of verifying or checking the second sensor’s sensed piston position as evidenced by Logachari
Lee further fails to disclose that the second magnet sensor is disposed on the guide. Instead, Lee discloses the second magnet sensor is disposed outside the guide.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the second magnet sensor and guide. Although the modified device of Lee/Masson discloses a guide and second magnet sensor, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee to incorporate the details of the second magnet sensor is disposed on the guide, along with the other claimed components of the apparatus. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 13 and 15 are dependent upon claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20150033839 A1 discloses a magnet disposed in a piston.
US 20180009425 A1 US 20200208698 A1 discloses a supply apparatus with a second magnet and sensor.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745