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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The following title is suggested: VIBRATING MOTOR WITH A MAGNET MEMBER WITH A PAIR OF MAGNETIZED REGIONS.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 5;, “energize” should be -- energized --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the magnet member comprises: a pair of magnetized regions, wherein a same magnetic pole is on each side of the pair of magnetized regions” is not clear. Claim 1 could mean that both magnetized regions are single pole magnets which are not described or enabled by the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amemiya (US 2018/0248458 A1) in view of Petersen (US 4,363,980 A).
As to claim 1, Amemiya shows (FIG. 3) A vibrating motor 100 comprising:
a stationary portion, wherein the stationary portion includes:
a coil 5 for applying a driving force to a magnet member in response to the coil 5 being energize, and
a case 41,42,43 accommodating the coil 5;
a movable element including the magnet member, wherein the movable element is accommodated in the case 41,42,43, and the magnet member comprises:
a pair of magnetized regions 61, 62;
an elastic member 10; and
a lid on a first side of the case 41,42,43 in a first direction, wherein the elastic member is between an end surface of the case 41,42,43 and the lid 2 in the first direction X (para [0015], coil 5 energized para [0046]).
Amemiya does not show a same magnetic pole is on each side of the pair of magnetized regions.
Petersen shows (FIG. 1) a same magnetic pole N is on each side of the pair of magnetized regions (col. 4, 25-35, col.2:4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the magnet member of Amemiya to have a same magnetic pole is on each side of the pair of magnetized regions as taught by Petersen, for the advantageous benefit of having a zone of maximum flux density which extends radially outward from the magnet member
as taught by Petersen (col. 4:67 to col. 5:14).
As to claim 2/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) the pair of magnetized regions 61,62 includes two magnets 61,62 arranged in the first direction X, and a magnetic body portion 63 between the two magnets 61,62 in the first direction X.
As to claim 3/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) the pair of magnetized regions 61,62 is a single member;
the single member includes a non-magnetized region 63 between magnetized regions of the pair of magnetized regions 61,62 in the first direction X (pole piece 63 is not magnetized).
As to claim 4/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) the movable element includes a holder member 7 that holds an end portion in the first direction X of the magnet member.
As to claim 5/4/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) wherein at least a part of the holder member 7 comprises metal (support plate 7 is a magnetic substance which implies a ferrous metal).
As to claim 6/4/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) the holder member 7 comprises:
a plate-like portion 71 that covers the end surface in the first direction X of the magnet member, and
a cylindrical portion covering and outer peripheral surface of the magnet member (7 outside of 71 is cylindrical and holds an edge of the magnet 61).
As to claim 8/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) a buffer member 14 on the one side in the first direction X of the case, wherein the elastic member 10 is between the movable element and the lid 2, and the buffer member 14 is on an inner surface of the lid facing an end surface in the first direction X of the movable element (para [0020]).
As to claim 10/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) a cover member 2 attached to an outer peripheral surface of the case 41,42,53.
As to claim 15/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) wherein, in a non-operating state, the movable element is configured to receive a first elastic force toward a second side in the first direction X by the elastic member 10 compressed from a natural length state and a second elastic force toward a first side in the first direction X by the elastic member 11 compressed from the natural length state are applied to the movable element, and the magnetic body portion of the movable element is at a center in the first direction X of the coil 5 (coil 5 not energized para [0046]) .
As to claim 16/15/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Amemiya further shows (FIG. 3) wherein the movable element is configured to vibrate in a first direction X in response to a driving force applied to the movable element (coil 5 energized para [0046]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amemiya (US 2018/0248458 A1) in view of Petersen (US 4,363,980 A) and Mohler (US 2002/0030572 A1).
As to claim 7/1, Amemiya in view of Petersen was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for the case comprises a magnetic material.
Mohler shows the housing comprises a magnetic material (iron para [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the magnet member of Amemiya in view of Petersen to have the case 1, 41,42,43 comprises a magnetic material as taught by Mohler, for the advantageous benefit of enabling the case 1, 41,42,43 to conduct magnetic flux emanating from the coil 5 as taught by Mohler (para [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not show or suggest a magnetic fluid as recited in claim 9. The prior art does not show or suggest two flat surface portions and two curved surface portions as recited in claims 11, 12, 14. The prior art does not show or suggest an elastic member with a number of beams and slits as recited in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights