DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third magnet” and “third ferromagnetic support” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1: In the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 below, the Office has re-written the claim using brackets in an attempt to highlight various informalities. For example, the Office included a colon after the word “comprising” of the preamble, replacing commas with semicolons following clauses, deleted the hyphens prior to various clauses, and re-written the last clause to more clearly describe what Applicant appears to be claiming. The Office invites Applicant to consider these recommendations (and the recommendations described below in the rejection of other claims).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 11: “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111.01. The plain meaning of the term “axis” (as it’s used in the name “main guide axis” and/or “secondary guide axis”) is an “imaginary line.” The dashed imaginary lines relating to elements 4 and 5 shown in FIG. 9 (corresponding to the disclosed “main guide axis 5” and “secondary guide axis 4”) are the same length. Thus, the Office discerns that Applicant cannot be referring to these imaginary lines as the claimed “main guide axis” and/or “secondary guide axis.” Rather, it appears Applicant must be claiming the linear rods or rails shown in the FIGURES. Thus, Applicant must either provide a special definition for the terms above. Alternatively, Applicant may amend the claims to recite, e.g. “linear rods,” “linear members, “linear rails,” etc. (the Office prefers this course of action).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The “third axis” (Line 16 – labeled as “Line 15” in the Claims) is a double inclusion, and it is unclear whether this limitation corresponds to the “third axis” introduced in Line 11.
Claim 1: The metes and bounds of the limitation “and the movable element respectively the fixed element comprises…” (Lines 19-20) and “the ferromagnetic support respectively the second magnet” (Lines 21-22) are unclear.
Claim 1: The metes and bounds of the limitation “avoid this clearance” (Line 23) are unclear.
Claim 1: The metes and bounds of the limitation “little… clearance” (Line 23) are unclear.
Claim 2: The “clearance” (Line 1), “first magnet” (Line 4 and Line 5), “ferromagnetic support” (Lines 4-5 and Line 6), and “second magnet” (Line 5 and Line 6) are double inclusions. It is unclear whether these elements correspond to the elements introduced in Claim 1, or if they are different elements.
Claim 6: The intended scope of the limitation “an optical component, e.g. a lens, a prism, a mirror or a camera sensor” is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 8: The intended scope of the limitation “a rolling bearing or a linear bearing, e.g. a N contact points bearing, N being an integer positive number” is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 9: The “secondary rolling bodies guide device” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 10: The “secondary rolling bodies guide device” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 12: The intended scope of the limitation “linear actuator comprising a screw-nut system, a ball screw, a cam, a connecting rod, a belt and/or a rack, etc (italics used for emphasis)” is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 13: The “position” (Line 1) lacks clear antecedent basis. The position of what?
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As an initial matter, it is unclear which structure(s)’ position is being limited by Claim 13. Furthermore, the function introduced in Claim 13, from which Claims 14 and 15 depend – i.e., “means for determining [a] position along [a] first axis” – is understood, based on a plain meaning, to relate to structure used to ascertain the position of some other structure. For example, as commonly known in the art, a variety of sensors (e.g., proximity sensors, hall effect sensors, etc.) are used in combination with controllers to ascertain the position of structural elements. Paragraphs [0098]-[00100] of the pending disclosure explains:
“In one embodiment, the means for determining the position along the first axis (the z axis) comprise one or more springs, e.g. one spring for each guide axis. A non-limitative example of those springs18 is visible e.g. on Figure 6. In one embodiment, the tension of each spring 18 could be adjusted, e.g. using a movable spring clip 12 at one of its end. Those spring 18 allow the (fixed) linear actuator6 (a cam in Figure 3) to be in contact with a spindle 2.”
Paragraph [0051] provides “In one embodiment, the guidance system comprises means for determining the position along the first axis (the z axis), those means being arranged for adding a preload on the first axis and/or for lowering or cancelling the clearance along the first axis.” The Office does not understand how the second clause of this sentence (relating to “adding a preload” and reducing a clearance) relates to the plain meaning of the first clause (i.e., “determining [a] position).
Based on this disclosure, it is unclear how Applicant uses springs (e.g., “springs 18” described in the disclosure) or a magnet/ferromagnetic support to “determine a position [of something] along an axis,” and Applicant does not disclose any other structure which might perform the claimed function, which results in the limitations recited in Claims 13-15 to lack enablement.
Turning to the Wands factors:
The breadth of the claims is not relevant;
The nature of the invention, as it relates to Claims 13-15, is unclear;
The state of the prior art is less relevant;
The level of one of ordinary skill might expect the limitations recited in Claims 13-15 to be an error in translation;
The level of predictability in the art is less relevant;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor is insufficient;
The existence of working examples is not applicable; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is determined to be undue.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. 202447906 U to Zeng et al., which discloses:
Claim 1, as best understood: A guidance system for guiding the displacement of a movable element 5 with respect to a fixed element 1, the guidance system comprising[:]
a linear actuator 8[;]
[wherein] the fixed element 1 [comprises:]
a main guide axis (along left linear bearing 2 shown in FIG. 1)[;]
a secondary guide axis (along right linear bearing 2 shown in FIG. 1)[;]
[wherein] the movable element 5 [is] arranged to be displaced by the linear actuator 8 with respect to the fixed element 1 along a first axis (into and out of the perspective shown in FIG. 1), the movable element 5 comprising:
[at least one] (based on Claim 7) first rolling bodies guide device 2 (left linear bearing rail 2 shown in FIG. 1) cooperating with the main guide axis, arranged to block four degrees of freedom of the movable element 5, the four degrees of freedom comprising a translation along a second axis, a translation along a third axis, a rotation about the second axis and a rotation about the third axis,
a second rolling bodies guide device 2 (right linear bearing rail 2 shown in FIG. 1) cooperating with the secondary guide axis, arranged to block a rotation of the movable element about [the] third axis[;]
wherein there is a clearance between the main guide axis and the first rolling bodies guide device 2 and/or between the secondary guide axis and the second rolling bodies guide device 2[;]
wherein [one of] the fixed element 1 [and] the movable element 5 comprises a first magnet (either electromagnetic disc 3 or electromagnetic disc 6 shown in FIG. 1 – the Office interprets an electromagnetic disc to read on a “magnet” according to a broadest reasonable interpretation), and [one of] the movable element 5 [and] the fixed element 1 comprises a ferromagnetic support and/or a second magnet (either electromagnetic disc 3 or electromagnetic disc 6 shown in FIG. 1)[; and]
wherein the first magnet and the ferromagnetic support [and/or] the second magnet are arranged to generate a magnetic force which is arranged to reduce or avoid this clearance, thereby enabling guidance with little or no clearance (see the attached machine translation which discloses a clearance “no more than 0.002 mm, which is understood to read on the limitation “little or no clearance,” as best understood).
Claim 2: The guidance system of claim 1, wherein the clearance is between a distal portion of the main guide axis and a distal portion of the first rolling bodies guide device and/or between a distal portion of the secondary guide axis and a distal portion of the second rolling bodies guide device.
Claim 4: The guidance system of claim 1, [wherein] the main guide axis [is] parallel to the secondary guide axis.
Claim 6: The guidance system of claim 1, [wherein] the movable element [is] arranged to hold an optical component, e.g. a lens, a prism, a mirror or a camera sensor (the Office interprets the limitation to mean that the “movable element is capable of holding an optical component,” and the Office submits that movable element 5 of Zeng is capable of this function).
Claim 7: The guidance system of claim 1, [wherein] the guidance system [comprises two] first rolling bodies guide devices [which are spaced apart and cooperate] with the main guide axis (see FIG. 2).
Claim 8: The guidance system of claim 1, [wherein] the first rolling bodies guide device and/or the second rolling bodies guide device [is/are] a rolling bearing or a linear bearing, e.g. a N contact points bearing, N being an integer positive number (see FIG. 2).
Claim 9: The guidance system of claim 1, [wherein] the first rolling bodies guide device [is] offset with respect to the [second] rolling bodies guide device (see FIG. 1).
Claim 10: The guidance system of claim 9, [wherein] the offset between the first rolling bodies guide device and the [second] rolling bodies guide device [is] 45° (see FIG. 2).
Claim 11: The guidance system of claim 1, [wherein] the second rolling bodies guide device [is] a rolling [bodies] track along the secondary guide axis.
Claim 12: The guidance system of claim 1, the linear actuator 8 comprising a screw-nut system, a ball screw, a cam, a connecting rod, a belt and/or a rack, etc. (italics used for emphasis).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 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 3, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 202447906 U to Zeng et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,834,353 to Chitayat.
Claim 3, as best understood, appears to mean that separate magnets and ferromagnetic supports are provided for each of the first rolling bodies guide device/main guide axis and the second rolling bodies guide device/secondary guide axis.
If that’s indeed what Applicant intended to claim, Zeng does not disclose or suggest separate magnets and ferromagnetic supports.
Chitayat teaches a similar device in which separate magnets and ferromagnetic supports are provided on opposite linear slides.
In view of the Chitayat teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the guidance system disclosed by Zeng, such that separate magnets and ferromagnetic supports are provided for the first rolling bodies guide device/main guide axis and the secondary guide axis, in order to equally distribute magnetic forces between each side of the guidance system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
If Applicant clarifies the claimed elements relating to the “main guide axis 5” and “secondary guide axis 4” of the pending disclosure (for example, by amending the claims to include a “first linear rail” and a “second linear rail”), the Office notes that the limitation recited in Claim 5 in which, e.g., a “first linear rail is longer than the second linear rail” is not disclosed or taught by the closest art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618