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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant' s communication filed November 19, 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-6 are now pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 19, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, and 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 3-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,614,961 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim substantially the same subject matter.
Claim Limitations of Instant Application
Corresponding Claim Language of
U.S. Patent No. 12,614,961 B2
RE Claim 1: A linear motor comprising:
Claim 1 recites: A linear motor comprising:
an armature; and a field magnet, the armature and the field magnet being arranged to face each other such that relative movement is possible
an armature and a field magnet that are disposed to face each other and configured to be subjected to relative movement,
wherein the armature includes a plurality of windings, each of which being wound around a first iron core and arranged along a direction of the relative movement,
wherein the armature includes a plurality of windings that are arranged along a direction of the relative movement, each of the windings being wound around a first iron core,
the field magnet is arranged to face the armature in a direction orthogonal to the direction of the relative movement, and includes a plurality of permanent magnets arranged along the direction of the relative movement,
wherein the field magnet includes a plurality of permanent magnets that are disposed to face both sides of the armature in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the relative movement, and are arranged along the direction of the relative movement,
and a plurality of second iron cores arranged to alternate with the permanent magnets along the direction of the relative movement,
Claim 3 recites: wherein the field magnet includes a second iron core and a third iron core, the second iron core is disposed on a side of the plurality of permanent magnets opposite to a side facing the armature so as to be adjacent to all of the plurality of permanent magnets that are arranged along the direction of the relative movement, and the third iron core is disposed between and in contact with permanent magnets of the plurality of permanent magnets,
and a first ratio of a dimension of a portion of the first iron core facing the field magnet with respect to a pitch at which the windings are arranged in the direction of the relative movement, is less than or equal to 0.53.
Claim 1 recites: wherein a ratio of a dimension of the first iron core to an arrangement pitch of the windings in the direction of the relative movement is in a range from 0.1 to 0.35,
RE Claim 4: wherein the permanent magnet is configured to be rare-earth-free.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the plurality of permanent magnets are rare-earth-free magnets.
RE Claim 5: wherein the permanent magnet is configured to be rare-metal-free.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the plurality of permanent magnets are rare-metal-free magnets.
RE Claim 6: wherein the permanent magnet is a lanthanum-free and cobalt-free ferrite magnet.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the plurality of permanent magnets are lanthanum-free and cobalt-free ferrite magnets.
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, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama et al. (US 20180076675 A1, hereafter referred to as Wakayama) in view of Trumper et al. (US 20200266692 A1, hereafter referred to as Trumper) and Vogel et al. (US 20110210689 A1, hereafter referred to as Vogel).
Regarding Claim 1, Wakayama discloses a linear motor (10, ¶ [0029]) comprising: an armature (12, ¶ [0029]); and a field magnet (11, ¶ [0029]), the armature (12, ¶ [0029]) and the field magnet (11, ¶ [0029]) being arranged to face each other such that relative movement is possible, wherein the armature (12, ¶ [0029]) includes a plurality of windings (14, ¶ [0032]), each of which being wound around a first core (13, ¶ 0032) and arranged along a direction of the relative movement, the field magnet (11, ¶ [0029]) is arranged to face the armature (12, ¶ [0029]) in a direction orthogonal to the direction of the relative movement, and includes a plurality of permanent magnets (11b, ¶ [0030]) arranged along the direction of the relative movement, and a first ratio of a dimension of a portion (tw, ¶ [0040]) of the first core (13, ¶ 0032) facing the field magnet (11, ¶ [0029]) with respect to a pitch (τs, ¶ [0040]) at which the windings (14, ¶ [0032]) are arranged in the direction of the relative movement, is less than or equal to 0.53 (see Fig 5, ¶ [0040]: “Then, the parts of the armature core 13 satisfy τs−φ>x−φ≧tw.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
332
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose that the first core is an iron core, and a plurality of second iron cores arranged to alternate with the permanent magnets along the direction of the relative movement.
However, Trumper, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 7) that the first core is an iron core (502, ¶ [0099]).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear motor disclosed by Wakayama such that the first core is an iron core, as disclosed by Trumper, in order to improve force density (¶ [0003]: “Iron-core permanent magnet linear motors have the potential for high force density,”).
Wakayama in view of Trumper does not disclose a plurality of second iron cores arranged to alternate with the permanent magnets along the direction of the relative movement.
However, Vogel, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 1) a plurality of second iron cores (4, ¶ [0033]) (¶ [0016]: “The pole piece and the magnetic guiding member must always include ferromagnetic and/or soft magnetic materials.”) arranged to alternate with the permanent magnets (7, 8, ¶ [0033]) along the direction of the relative movement.
PNG
media_image4.png
428
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear motor disclosed by Wakayama in view of Trumper such that a plurality of second iron cores arranged to alternate with the permanent magnets along the direction of the relative movement, as disclosed by Vogel, in order to improve the force of the motor (¶ [0033]: “The force of the motor can be increased by more than an order of magnitude due to the pole piece. ”).
Regarding Claim 2/1, Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel has been discussed above.
wherein when the first ratio is “x” and a second ratio of a dimension of the second iron core with respect to a pitch at which the plurality of permanent magnets are arranged in the direction of the relative movement is “a”, a following relational expression is satisfied: x≤−0.184a+0.518.
Additionally, Trumper teaches (see Figure 7) that ratios of a dimensions of the second iron core (Annotated Figure 9) with respect to a pitch (τp) at which the plurality permanent magnets (Annotated Figure 9) are arranged is a result effective variable (see explanation in ¶ [0106], and Table 1 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
224
428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear motor disclosed by Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel such that when the first ratio is “x” and a second ratio of a dimension of the second iron core with respect to a pitch at which the plurality of permanent magnets are arranged in the direction of the relative movement is “a”, a following relational expression is satisfied: x≤−0.184a+0.518, as taught by Trumper, in order to determine optimum force performance (¶ [0106]: “For the permanent magnet track design, a Halbach array ratio can be determined and represented by the fraction of vertical magnets, f.sub.magnet out of a pole pitch. Magnet thickness as a parameter of the magnet aspect ratio PM.sub.thick can also be determined. Determination of these parameters can be based on various design constraints and simulation modeling to determine optimum force performance (e.g., in terms of shear stress and acceleration) for a given set of design parameter constraints.”).
Regarding Claim 3/1, Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel has been discussed above.
Additionally, Wakayama discloses (see Figure 5 above) that in a direction facing the field magnet (11, ¶ [0029], the dimension of the portion (tw, ¶ [0040]) of the first iron core (13, ¶ 0032) facing the field magnet (11, ¶ [0029]) is larger than a dimension of other portions (φ, ¶ [0040]) of the first iron core (13, ¶ 0032).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20190245425 A1, hereafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding Claim 4/1, Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel has been discussed above.
Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel does not disclose that the permanent magnet is configured to be rare-earth-free.
However, Kim, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 2) that the permanent magnet (130, ¶ [0072]) is configured to be rare-earth-free (¶ [0044]: “Furthermore, in the transverse flux type linear motor according to the present disclosure, ferrite magnet may be used as a magnet to reduce material cost for the magnet, thereby implementing the reduction of fabrication cost.”).
PNG
media_image6.png
476
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear motor disclosed by Wakayama in view of Trumper and Vogel such that the permanent magnet is configured to be rare-earth-free, as disclosed by Kim, in order to reduce cost (¶ [0044]: “Furthermore, in the transverse flux type linear motor according to the present disclosure, ferrite magnet may be used as a magnet to reduce material cost for the magnet, thereby implementing the reduction of fabrication cost.”).
Regarding Claim 5/4/1, Wakayama in view of Trumper, Vogel, and Kim has been discussed above.
Additionally, Kim discloses that the permanent magnet (130, ¶ [0072]) is configured to be rare-metal-free (¶ [0044]: “Furthermore, in the transverse flux type linear motor according to the present disclosure, ferrite magnet may be used as a magnet to reduce material cost for the magnet, thereby implementing the reduction of fabrication cost.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear motor disclosed by Wakayama in view of Trumper, Vogel, and Kim such that the permanent magnet is configured to be rare-metal-free, as further disclosed by Kim, in order to reduce cost (¶ [0044]: “Furthermore, in the transverse flux type linear motor according to the present disclosure, ferrite magnet may be used as a magnet to reduce material cost for the magnet, thereby implementing the reduction of fabrication cost.”).
Regarding Claim 6/5/4/1, Wakayama in view of Trumper, Vogel, and Kim has been discussed above.
Additionally, Kim discloses that the permanent magnet (130, ¶ [0072]) is a lanthanum-free and cobalt-free ferrite magnet (¶ [0044]: “Furthermore, in the transverse flux type linear motor according to the present disclosure, ferrite magnet may be used as a magnet to reduce material cost for the magnet, thereby implementing the reduction of fabrication cost.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear motor disclosed by Wakayama in view of Trumper, Vogel, and Kim such that the permanent magnet is a lanthanum-free and cobalt-free ferrite magnet, as further disclosed by Kim, in order to reduce cost (¶ [0044]: “Furthermore, in the transverse flux type linear motor according to the present disclosure, ferrite magnet may be used as a magnet to reduce material cost for the magnet, thereby implementing the reduction of fabrication cost.”).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
von der Heide et al. (US 4638192 A) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 1-7.
Tang et al. (US 20080218005 A1) discloses relevant prior art in Figure 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE FRANK MANN whose telephone number is (703)756-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:30PM PST.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights