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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Ref. No. 3 in Fig. 3 should be deleted and in Fig. 6, Ref. Nos. 2 and 4 should be switched. 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 3 is objected to because “the other end” in line 2 should be --another end--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a width” in line 1 should be --the width--;
“a length” in line 2 should be --the length--.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the first and second magnets” in line 2 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--.
Claim 6 is objected to because “the first and second magnets” in line 2 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--.
Claim 7 is objected to because “the first and second magnets” in line 1 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--.
Claim 8 is objected to because “lengths of the first and second magnets” in line 1 should be --a length of the first magnet and a length of the second magnet--.
Claim 11 is objected to because “the other end” in line 2 should be --another end--.
Claim 12 is objected to because “the first and second magnets” in line 1 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--.
Claim 13 is objected to because “the first and second magnets” in line 2 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a magnetic field device” in line 2 should be ---the magnetic field device--;
“the first and second magnets” in lines 2-3 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a magnetic field device” in line 2 should be ---the magnetic field device--;
“the first and second magnets” in lines 2-3 should be --the first magnet and the second magnet--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 5, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (U.S. 2009/0322000).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Takahashi discloses a magnetic field device (2C, agitator - Para 37 (see Figs. 5 and 9)) comprising:
a rotating body (8, yoke - Para 27 (see Figs. 5, 7, and Para 37)) to be driven to rotate around a central axis (Modified Figs. 5, 7 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of central axis which element 2c rotates is shown at element A; element A corresponds to the axis referenced in Para 37 which 9A/9B/2C rotates));
a first magnet (9A, permanent magnet - Para 27) fixed on the rotating body (8)(see Fig. 5 and Para 26) and having an upper surface magnetized to N pole (see Modified Figs. 5, 7 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of upper surface of element 9A magnetized to N pole (see also Para 27))); and
a second magnet (9B, magnetic field device - Para 30) fixed on the rotating body (8)(see Fig. 5) and having an upper surface magnetized to S pole (see Modified Figs. 5, 7 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of upper surface of element 9A magnetized to S pole (see also Para 30))),
the first magnet (9A) and the second magnet (9B) being arranged opposite each other (see Figs. 5 and 7) to form a groove (G, gap - Para 34) that is longer in length (Modified Figs. 5,7 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of length of element G)) than in width (Modified Figs. 5,7 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of width of element G))(see Modified Figs. 5,7 above (element E is clearly shown greater than D)).
Re claim 2:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the groove (G) passes through a center of the rotating body (8)(see Figs. 5, 7, and 9 (G is clearly shown passing through center of element 8 between views)).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the groove (G) extends from one end of the rotating body (Modified Fig. 9 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of one end of element 8)) to the other end of the rotating body (Modified Fig. 9 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of other end of element 8))(see Figs. 5, 7, and Modified Fig. 9 above).
Re claim 5:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the rotating body (8) has no magnet other than the first (9A) and second magnets (9B)(see Figs. 5-6 and 9 (elements 9A and 9B are clearly shown as the only magnets on element 8)).
Re claim 7:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first (9A) and second magnets (9B) are rod-shaped magnets (see Figs. 5, 7, and 9 (elements 9A, 9B clearly shown as types of rod-shaped magnets)) arranged in parallel across a center of the rotating body (8)(see Figs. 5, 7, and 9).
Re claim 8:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 7 (as described above), wherein lengths of the first (9A) and second magnets (9B) are substantially equal to a diameter of the rotating body (8)(see Fig. 9 (lengths of elements 9A and 9B are shown substantially equal to a chord passing through the center of element 8)).
Re claim 15:
Takahashi discloses a method of stirring molten metal (see Fig. 9, Paras 10 and 27-28), the method comprising: installing a magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above) such that magnetic field lines of the first (9A) and second magnets (9B) penetrate molten metal (M, aluminum melt - Para 28) in a furnace (1, melting furnace - Para 27)(see Fig. 9 and Para 36) or vortex chamber; and stirring the molten metal (M) by rotating the rotating body (8)(see Figs. 5, 9, and Para 36).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko (JP2004254437A).
PNG
media_image3.png
380
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 9:
Kaneko discloses a magnetic field device (5, driving device - Para 21) comprising:
a rotating body (14, disk-shaped rotor yoke - Para 29) to be driven to rotate around a central axis (see Figs. 8-10 at 20 and Para 35 - “…rotation shaft…”);
a first magnet (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of first magnet)) fixed on the rotating body (14)(Para 29 - “…permanent magnet rotor 16…is mounted on a disk-shaped rotor yoke 14…”) and having an upper surface (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of upper surface of element 16)) magnetized to N pole (see Modified Figs. 9,10 above at A and C (see also Figs. 7A, 7B, and 8A)); and
a second magnet (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of second magnet)) fixed on the rotating body (14)(Para 29 - “…permanent magnet rotor 16…is mounted on a disk-shaped rotor yoke 14…”) and having an upper surface (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - C) magnetized to S pole (see Modified Figs. 9,10 above at B and C (see also Figs. 7A, 7B, and 8A)),
the first magnet (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - A) and the second magnet (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - B) being arranged to contact each other (see Modified Figs, 9,10 above) and form a boundary (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of boundary)).
Re claim 10:
Kaneko discloses the magnetic field device (5) according to claim 9 (as described above), wherein the boundary (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - D) passes through a center of the rotating body (14)(see Modified Figs.9,10 above (element D is shown completely surrounding element 20 which passes through center of element 14)).
Re claim 11:
Kaneko discloses the magnetic field device (5) according to claim 9 (as described above), wherein the boundary (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - D) extends from one end of the rotating body (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of one end of element 14)) to the other end of the rotating body (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of other end of element 14))(see Modified Figs. 9,10 above).
Re claim 12:
Kaneko discloses the magnetic field device (5) according to claim 9 (as described above), wherein the first (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - A) and second magnets (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - B) are substantially semicircular magnets (see Modified Figs. 9,10 above) or rod-shaped magnets.
Re claim 13:
Kaneko discloses the magnetic field device (5) according to claim 9 (as described above), wherein the rotating body (14) has no magnet other than the first (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - A) and second magnets (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - B)(see Modified Figs. 9,10 above (elements A and B are clearly shown as the only magnets on element 14 between two views)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. 2009/0322000), as applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 4:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein a width (Modified Figs. 5,7 above - D) of the groove (G) is
Takahashi fails to disclose wherein a width of the groove is less than or equal to 1/10 of a length of the groove.
Takahashi teaches wherein a width of the groove is a results effective variable that that changes the efficiency of the agitator (Para 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the magnetic field device of Takahashi by making a width of the groove be less than or equal to 1/10 of a length of the groove as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. 2009/0322000), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kaneko (JP2004254437A).
Re claim 6:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the rotating body (8) has a
Takahashi fails to disclose wherein the rotating body has a disc shape, nor wherein the first and second magnets are substantially semicircular.
Kaneko teaches a magnetic field device (5, driving device - Para 21) wherein a rotating body (14, disk-shaped rotor yoke - Para 29) has a disc shape (Para 29 - “…disk-shaped rotor yoke…”), and wherein first and second magnets (Modified Figs. 9,10 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of first magnet); Modified Figs. 9,10 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of second magnet)) are substantially semicircular (see Modified Figs. 9,10 above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the magnetic field device of Takahashi after that of Kaneko, thereby making the rotating body of Takahashi disc shaped and making the first and second magnets of Kaneko substantially semicircular, all in the way taught by Kaneko, for the advantage of reducing sharp edges (Kaneko; see Figs. 9-10 where element 16 and 14 being round shows a reduction of sharp edges).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. 2009/0322000), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Allwine (U.S. 6,124,709).
Re claim 14:
Takahashi discloses the magnetic field device (2C) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Takahashi fails to disclose wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are ferrite magnets.
Allwine teaches a magnetic field device (20, magnetic disc - Col. 4, Line 17) wherein a magnet (26, magnet - Col. 4, Line 26) is a ferrite magnet (Col. 4, Lines 41-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the first and second magnets of Takahashi after the magnet of Alline, thereby making the magnets of Takahashi ferrite magnets as taught by Allwine, for the advantage of a magnet made of convention material which is commercially available (Allwine; Col. 4, Lines 41-45).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (JP2004254437A), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Allwine (U.S. 6,124,709).
Re claim 16:
Kaneko discloses the magnetic field device (5) according to claim 9 (as described above).
Kaneko fails to disclose wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are ferrite magnets.
Allwine teaches a magnetic field device (20, magnetic disc - Col. 4, Line 17) wherein a magnet (26, magnet - Col. 4, Line 26) is a ferrite magnet (Col. 4, Lines 41-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the first and second magnets of Kaneko after the magnet of Alline, thereby making the magnets of Kaneko ferrite magnets as taught by Allwine, for the advantage of a magnet made of convention material which is commercially available (Allwine; Col. 4, Lines 41-45).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. 2009/0322000) in view of Kaneko (JP2004254437A) as applied to claim 9 above.
Re claim 17:
Takahashi discloses a method of stirring molten metal (see Fig. 9, Paras 10 and 27-28), the method comprising: installing a magnetic field device (2C) or vortex chamber; and stirring the molten metal (M) by rotating the rotating body (8)(see Figs. 5, 9, and Para 36).
Takahashi fails to disclose a magnetic field device according to claim 9.
Kaneko teaches a magnetic field device (5) according to claim 9 (as described above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the magnetic field device of Takahashi after that of Kaneko, thereby making the magnetic field device of Takahashi the magnetic field device of clam 9 in the way taught by Kaneko, for the advantage of compact shape (Kaneko; Para 28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 1/16/26