Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-02-20)

CLAIMS:
LISTING OF THE CLAIMS

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Claims pending:

o At time of the Action: Claims 1-10o After this Reply: Claims 1-7, 9, and 10Currently Canceled or Withdrawn Claims: Claim 8 Currently Amended Claims: Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 New Claims: None

1\. (Currently Amended) A manipulating device, comprising:
a rocker, one end of the rocker is a manipulation end, the other end of the rocker is provided with a magnetic assembly, and the rocker is configured to be rotatable; and
a coil assembly disposed opposite to the rocker and adjacent to the magnetic assembly, the coil assembly is a planar coil,
wherein the magnetic assembly comprises a central magnet and at least one side magnet, and the coil assembly is configured to be capable of being supplied with an electrical signal, and an interaction force is generated between the coil assembly and the magnetic assembly wherein the manipulating device further comprises a fitting member, the fitting member is an iron core, and the iron core is positioned in the middle of the coil assembly.

2\. (Currently Amended) The manipulating device according to claim 1, wherein the central magnet is formed to have a column shape, and one end of the central magnet having the column shape is fixedly connected to the rocker.

3\. (Currently Amended) The manipulating device according to claim 2, wherein the other end of the central magnet having the column shape is formed to have a spherical surface.

4\. (Previously Presented) The manipulating device according to claim 1, wherein a magnetization direction of the central magnet is parallel to an axial direction of the central magnet having the column shape, and a magnetization direction of the side magnet is perpendicular to the axial direction of the central magnet having the column shape.

5\. (Previously Presented) The manipulating device according to claim 1, further comprises a supporting member, and the rocker is rotatable around the supporting member.

6\. (Currently Amended) The manipulating device according to claim \-15,further comprises a housing, and both the supporting member and the coil assembly are fixedly connected to the housing.

7\. (Previously Presented) The manipulating device according to claim 1, further comprises a fitting member, wherein the fitting member is a magnet, and the magnet is positioned in the middle of the coil assembly.

8\. (Cancelled)

9\. (Currently Amended) A-The manipulating device according to claim 1, wherein a central axis of the coil assembly passes through a center around which the rocker rotates.

10\. (Currently Amended) A-Themanipulating device according to claim 1, wherein the rocker is symmetrically disposed with respect to an A-A plane.

OFFICE 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 .
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:  the examiner is persuaded by applicant’s arguments in the response dated January 20, 2025 in light of the amendments made to the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Reconsideration and allowance in view of the foregoing amendments and the following remarks are respectfully requested.
In the outstanding Office Action, Claims 2, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph; Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103; and Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
In this Response, Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 are currently amended; and Claim 8 is canceled without prejudice to, or disclaimer of, the subject matter recited therein. Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are pending. Support for the amendments to independent Claim 1 can be found, at least at, originally filed Claim 8 and page 12, lines 15-21 of the originally filed specification. No new matter is added.
Editorial amendments have also been made to the claims to correct grammatical errors and other informalities, such as ensuring that proper antecedent basis is recited for all features of the claims. None of these amendments introduce new matter, nor are they intended to alter the scope in view of any of the cited references. Favorable consideration is respectfully requested.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "at least one side magnets" (lines 6- 7) should read "at least one side magnet". Appropriate correction is required.
In a cooperative effort to expedite the present application to allowance, Applicant has currently amended Claim 1. Accordingly, in view of the amendment of Claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the objection is now moot and respectfully requests that the objection be reconsidered and withdrawn.
CLAIM REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C.
§
Claims 2, 6, and 9-10 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.
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection; however, in a cooperative effort to expedite the present application to allowance, Applicant has currently amended Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 as follows:
" Regarding claim 2, "the cylinder shape" is amended as "the column shape". Appropriate
correction is also made to the description correspondingly.
" Regarding claims 1 and 3, "another end of the rocker" in claim 1 is amended as "the other end
of the rocker". In addition, "at least one side magnets" is amended as "at least one side
magnet". Appropriate correction is made to the description correspondingly.
" Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is amended to refer to claim 5.
" Regarding claims 9 and 10, "A manipulating device according to claim 1" is amended as "The
manipulating device according to claim 1".
The amendments are not to be interpreted as Applicant's acquiescence to the substance of the rejection. Accordingly, in view of the amendment of Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is now moot and respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
CLAIM REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C.
§
103(a)
The outstanding Office Action includes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
a) Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi, US 2003/0080939 Al (hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of KUMAHARA et al., US 2016/0357272 Al
(hereinafter Kumahara).
b) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kobayashi, in view of Kumahara, and further in view of Chacko et al., US
2013/0248276 Al (hereinafter Chacko).
Applicant traverses the rejections, and respectfully requests that the rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claim 1
In a cooperative effort to expedite the present application to allowance, independent Claim 1 is currently amended. However, the amendments are not to be interpreted as acquiescence to the substance of the rejection.
Currently amended Claim 1 recites, in part (emphasis added):
a coil assembly disposed opposite to the rocker and adjacent to the magnetic assembly,
the coil assembly is a planar coil,
in the manipulatin
g
device further comprises a fittin
g
membe
fitting member is an iron core, and the iron core is
position
the middle of the coil assembly.
As an initial matter, Applicant notes that features of Claim 8 have been incorporated in currently amended Claim 1. Further, the above amendment is supported by the originally filed specification at page 12, lines 15-21, as follows:
When the fitting member 5 is an iron core, the fitting member 5 can generate a strong attractive force F to the magnetic assembly 3. Thus, regardless whether or not the coil assembly 4 is energized, both the rocker 1 and the magnetic assembly 3 can automatically return to a balancing position under the attractive force of the fitting member 5, moreover, when the coil assembly 4 is energized, the iron core can also
enhance the magnetic field generated by the coil assembly 4.
The examiner contends that Kobayashi discloses a fitting member is positioned in the middle of the coil assembly, Chacko teaches wherein the fitting member is an iron core, and that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the haptic input apparatus as disclosed by Kobayashi with an electromagnetic coil with a ferrous core as taught by Chacko since the use of ferrous core is a conventional design. The Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's allegations.
Kobayashi discloses that the electromagnetic brake 13 is formed of an electromagnetic coil 5, a permanent magnet 13b arranged below the electromagnetic coil 5 and a magnetic plate 11 mounted to the spherical portion 3. Firstly, the magnetic plate 11 and the electromagnetic coil 5 of the electromagnetic brake 13 do not have the structure of the magnetic assembly 3 and the coil assembly 4
of the present application. In addition, as can be clearly seen from FIG. 3 of Kobayashi,
the middle of the electromagnetic coil 5 is not an iron core, but a detection means 6 used to detect an o
p
erating state of the lever handle 4
,
and the detection means 6 can be any well-known
p
osition sensor, but not the iron core.
Further, Chacko discloses (see paragraph [0029]) "In contrast, the other primary source of delay, i.e., magnetic response delay, can significantly lessen the responsiveness of the feedback brake unit 11 and render it ineffective for avoiding over-control. The magnetic response delay can be considered as originating from (1) the delay incurred while a ferrous core of the electromagnetic coil 20 builds a magnetic flux in response to the applied current signal and (2) the delay incurred while the magnetic portions of the magnetically reactive medium 19 align or otherwise react to the magnetic flux generated by the electromagnetic coil 20". Firstly, Chacko fails to disclose the structure of the magnetic assembly 3 and the coil assembly 4 of the present application. In addition, assuming arguendo, to which the Applicant does not agree, that Chacko mentions an iron core, Applicant submits that there is no description of the position of the iron core, and Chacko does not have the technical effect of the iron core positioned in the middle of the coil assembly as mentioned in the present application.
As Kobayashi and Chacko fails to disclose the currently amended features of Claim 1, the rejection must rely on Kumahara to cure the deficiencies of Kobayashi and Chacko. Kumahara, however, also does not disclose the features of currently amended Claim 1. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references, whether combined or separately, cannot teach the currently amended features of Claim 1. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cited references disclose the features of currently amended Claim 1.
Therefore, Applicant submits that Kobayashi, Chacko, and Kumahara, fails to disclose the previously presented or currently amended features of Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claims 1-7
and 10
Dependent Claims 1-7, 9, and 10, depend, directly or indirectly, from independent Claim 1. Accordingly, the dependent claims are allowable over the cited references at least by virtue of their dependency from independent Claim 1, as well as the other features recited therein. Applicant, therefore respectfully requests that rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be reconsidered and withdrawn.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17/790,234 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they vary slightly in terms of wording.
Applicant traverses the rejections, and respectfully requests that the rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
In a cooperative effort to expedite the present application to allowance, independent Claim 1 is currently amended. However, the amendment is not to be interpreted as acquiescence to the substance of the rejection. Currently amended Claim 1 recites, in part, "the coil assembly is a planar coil." As disclosed in the present application at page 7, lines 12-15: The coil assembly 4 may be a planar coil, and the planar coil can be provided with uniform windings to generate a uniform and stable electric field, such that a stable interaction force is generated between
the coil assembly 4 and the magnetic assembly 3.
Amended claim 1 herein discloses "the coil assembly is a planar coil", and claim 1 of Application No. 17/790,234 discloses "a coil assembly formed to have an arc shape, an inner surface of the arc shape faces the rocker". Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claims 1-10 of the present application (see FIGS. 1 and 2 of the present application) and claims 1-8 of Application No. 17/790,234 (see FIGS. 1 and 2 of 17/790,234) are distinguishable from each other.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that double-patenting rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
CONCLUSION