DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (the submitted abstract contains 151 words). The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In this case, the words “The present disclosure discloses” is a phrase which can be implied.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the brake unit as described in the specification. The Office notes that the drawing contained in the priority application is much clearer than the drawing in the file wrapper for the pending application. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 limitations recited in Claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The Office notes that the only FIGURE provided in the pending application includes lead lines for reference numerals 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. Reference numeral 41 corresponds to the “first brake member 41” described in the written disclosure, reference numeral 42 corresponds to the “second brake member 42” described in the written disclosure, reference numeral 43 corresponds to the “electromagnetic part 43” described in the written disclosure, reference numeral 44 corresponds to the “elastic member” described in the written disclosure, and reference numeral 45 corresponds to the “sliding table 45” described in the written disclosure. The lead lines for each of these reference numerals are connected to a single element illustrated in the FIGURE. That is, reference numerals 41-45, as illustrated in the FIGURE, do not appear to be associated with multiple elements. In other words, the FIGURE does not adequately illustrate “at least two first brake members.” Even more particularly, the FIGURE does not provide support for a single second brake member which “is arranged between two adjacent first brake members,” as recited in Claim 4. For example, even if for the sake of argument, Applicant were to propose amendments to the drawings which add a lead line and reference numeral 41 to an element which is adjacently left of lead line for reference numeral 45, these proposed “first brake members would not surround a single second brake member, because the FIGURE appears to illustrate two second brake members (see annotated the annotated FIGURE below). In other words, the pending FIGURE is at odds with original Claim 4 and the written disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: The Office recommends deleting the commas used after the introduction of the “stator” (Line 3), the “rotor” (Line 4), and the “brake unit” (Line 7). That is, the Office recommends amending, e.g., the limitation “a stator, sleeved” (Line 3) to recite “a stator sleeved,” etc.
Claim 1: The Office recommends inserting the word “wherein” prior to the limitation “and the rotor” (Line 5).
Claim 6: The Office recommends deleting the comma used after the introduction of the “first excitation assembly” (Line 3) and inserting the word “a” prior to the word “periphery” (Line 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of Claim interpretation, the limitation “sleeved on” recited in Lines 3, 4, and 7 is understood to mean, e.g., “concentric with,” which appears to be consistent with the structure illustrated in the FIGURES. The Office recommends Applicant consider alternative language. For example, Applicant may consider amending the limitation(s) “sleeved on” to recite, e.g., “concentric with.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claim 4 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 described above in the objection to the drawings, the pending disclosure does not provide support for a “second brake member [which] is arranged between two adjacent first brake members.”
Regarding the Wands factors:
(A) The breadth of Claim 4 is overly broad;
(B) The nature of the invention is not adequately shown;
(C) The state of the prior art is not considered to be relevant;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill cannot discern between Applicant’s disclosure and the Claim;
(E) The level of predictability in the art cannot resolve the inconsistency between Applicant’s disclosure and the Claim;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor is insufficient;
(G) The existence of working examples is not relevant; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is found to be undue.
Claims 2 and 14 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 2: The metes and bounds of the limitation “close proximity” (Line 3) are unclear. How close is close?
Claim 14: The metes and bounds of the limitation “close proximity” (Line 4) are unclear. How close is close?
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,161,074 to Korthaus et al., which discloses:
Claim 1: A linear motor, comprising:
an output shaft 12;
a stator 3, sleeved on the output shaft 12;
a rotor 4, wherein the rotor 4 is coupled with the stator 3, and the rotor 4 is driven to rotate by an electromagnetic force generated between the rotor 4 and the stator 3 and drives the output shaft 12 to move axially; and
a brake unit 18/24, 16, sleeved on the output shaft 12.
Claim 2: Korthaus discloses the linear motor according to claim 1, wherein the brake unit comprises:
a first brake member 18/24, connected to the stator 3 (Page 2, Lines 103-106); and
a second brake member 16, connected to the rotor 4 and arranged in close proximity to the first brake member 18/24; wherein
an electromagnetic part 17 is arranged on at least one of the first brake member 18/24 and the second brake member 16, and the first brake member 18/24 and the second brake member 16 are configured such that when the electromagnetic part 17 is energized, the first brake member is separated from the second brake member (see Col. 3, Lines 44-62), and when the electromagnetic part 17 is de-energized, the first brake member and the second brake member come into contact and generate a frictional force for braking (see Col. 3, Lines 44-69).
Claim 3: The linear motor according to claim 2, wherein both the first brake member 18/24 and the second brake member 16 are annular pieces sleeved on the output shaft 12.
Claim 5: The linear motor according to claim 1, further comprising: a main housing 1, wherein an accommodating cavity is defined in the main housing 1 (see the FIGURE), and an output opening is formed on at least one end of two opposite ends of the main housing 1 (see the FIGURE);
the output shaft 12, the stator 3, the rotor 4, and the brake unit 18/24, 16 are all arranged inside the accommodating cavity, at least one end of the output shaft 12 fits outside the main housing 1 via the output opening, the rotor 4 is arranged around the output shaft 12, and the stator 3 surrounds the rotor 4 and is fixedly connected to the main housing 1.
Claim 6: The linear motor according to claim 5, wherein the rotor 4 comprises:
a nut 8; and
a first excitation assembly 5, 6, fixedly connected to [a] periphery of the nut 8; wherein
the output shaft 12 comprises a lead screw fitting with the nut 8, and the brake unit is sleeved on an outer side of the nut (see the FIGURE).
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.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,161,074 to Korthaus et al.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 depend from Claims 1-3 and 5-6, respectively, and Claims 15-17 recite the same limitation. Korthaus discloses the linear motor according to claim 1-3 and 5-6, wherein the stator 3 is provided with a second excitation assembly 2 coupled with the rotor 4, the linear motor further comprises a driver (“current source” disclosed at Col. 2, Line 58) electrically connected with the second excitation assembly 2 (Col. 2, Line 58) and the brake unit (Col. 3, Lines 55-65).
Korthaus does not expressly disclose wherein the driver is annular and is sleeved on an outer side of the output shaft 12.
Nevertheless, 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 design, with a reasonable expectation of success, the driver disclosed by Korthaus (i.e., the disclosed “current source”) in an annular fashion such that it is sleeved on an outer side of the output shaft 12 so as to provide power to various ends of the stator coil/second excitation assembly 2, which is annular and is sleeved on an outer side of the output shaft 12. Accordingly, the linear motor of Claims 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rendered obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,161,074 to Korthaus et al., as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of German Patent Publication No. 906876 to Russell.
Claim 7: Korthaus discloses the linear motor according to claim 6, wherein two opposite ends of the main housing 1 are both provided with the output openings (see the FIGURE), and two ends of the output shaft 12 are located at the two output openings, respectively (see the FIGURE); and
the linear motor further comprises two supporting bearings 22, 23, and the two supporting bearings respectively fit at the two output openings.
Korthaus does not disclose wherein the two supporting bearings 22, 23 are sleeved on the nut 8.
Russell teaches a linear motor similar to Korthaus, except that the rotor 18 of Russell includes an inner thread along its length from two supporting bearings 24.
In view of the Russell 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 linear motor disclosed by Korthaus, such that the rotor 8, 9 of Korthaus includes an inner thread along its length from the two supporting bearings 22, 23, in order to better support the output shaft 12.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,161,074 to Korthaus et al., as applied to Claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0059944 A1 to Oteman et al.
Claims 8-10 and 12-13 depend from Claims 1-3 and 5-6, respectively, and Claims 8-10 and 12-13 recite the same limitation (the linear motor “further comprising an angle detection unit configured to detect a rotation position of the rotor”).
Korthaus discloses the linear motor according to Claims 1-3 and 5-6, but Korthaus does not disclose or suggest an angle detection unit configured to detect a rotation position of the rotor 4.
Oteman teaches a linear motor comprising rotors 110, 112 and angle detection units 146, 144 configured to detect a rotation position of the rotors 110, 112. See Paragraph [0023] “In the example of FIG. 1, a separate rotary encoder 144, 146 is attached to each motor, with a stationary part 144a, 146a detecting a symbol on a rotating part 144b, 146b connected to the rotor.”
In view of the Oteman 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 linear motor disclosed by Korthaus such that it further comprises an angle detection unit configured to detect a rotation position of the rotor 4, in order to determine the position of the output shaft 12, as taught by Oteman at Paragraph [0023]. Thus, Claims 8-10 and 12-13 are rendered obvious over the combination of Korthaus and Oteman.
Claim 14: As explained above, Korthaus does not disclose an angle detection unit.
Oteman teaches angle detection units 144, 146 which comprise:
a rotating piece 144b, 146b, sleeved on an output shaft 120, 126 and fixedly connected to a rotor 110, 112;
a supporting piece 144a, 146a, sleeved on the output shaft 120, 126 and fixed relative to a stator 106, 108, wherein the supporting piece 144a, 146a is arranged in close proximity to the rotating piece 144b, 146b; and
an angle sensor, arranged on the supporting piece 144a, 146a to sense and detect a position of the rotating piece 144b, 146b (see Paragraph [0023]).
In view of the Oteman 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 linear motor disclosed by Korthaus such that the angle detection unit comprises:
a rotating piece, sleeved on the output shaft 12 and fixedly connected to the rotor 4 of Korthaus;
a supporting piece, sleeved on the output shaft 12 and fixed relative to the stator 3, wherein the supporting piece is arranged in close proximity to the rotating piece; and
an angle sensor, arranged on the supporting piece to sense and detect a position of the rotating piece, in order to determine the position of the output shaft 12, as taught by Oteman at Paragraph [0023].
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