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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein each of the laminate plate is a ring ...” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner believes this to be a grammatical error and will interpret the limitation as “wherein each of the plurality of laminate plates are a ring ...”
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 – 8, 11 – 16, and 18 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 limitation “... stacking the laminate plates comprises aligning hollow portions of the plurality of laminate plates such that apertures located in the hollow portion align to form one or more axially extending channels” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is generally unclear as to the difference between the ‘hollow portions’ and the ‘apertures’ within the ‘hollow portions.’ Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches that the ‘hollow portions’ are illustrated in the drawings and are delimitated by ‘narrow connectors’ of the given laminate plate (figure 3a, elements 104 being the ‘hollow portions’ and elements 105 being the ‘narrow connectors’; paragraph 58). However, the Specification further teaches that the ‘apertures’ are also delimited by the same ‘narrow connectors’ as well as ‘solid portions’ of the given laminate plate (figure 3a, elements 102 being the ‘solid portions’; paragraph 60). Therefore, as best understood by the Examiner, both the limitation and the Specification describe the ‘hollow portions’ and the ‘apertures’ as being the same element. Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “axially extending channels” of the limitation to refer to, and further define, the “one or more channels” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second set of ‘channels’ which are separate and independent from the ‘channels’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret “axially extending channels” so as to refer to, and further define, the ‘channels’ previously set forth.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein casting or molding the non-magnetic material such that it completely fills each channel along its entire axial length” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the step of ‘casting or molding a non-magnetic material’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second step of ‘casting or molding’ which is separate and independent from the ‘casting or molding’ previously set forth. Secondly, it is generally unclear as to what element Applicant intends “it” (in “it completely fills ...”) to refer to. Next, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends ‘each channel’ to refer to the ‘one or more channels’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second set of ‘channels’ which are separate and independent from the ‘channels’ previously set forth. Finally, it is generally unclear as to what element Applicant intents “its” (in “its entire length”) to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the casting or molding the non-magnetic material is performed such that the non-magnetic material completely fills each of the one or more channels along an entire axial length of each of the one or more channels.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 8, 11 – 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tojima (International Publication Number WO 2015/137392 A1, cited in IDS) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0284512), Buttner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0372546) and Bendixen (International Publication Number WO 2015/197067 A1, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Tojima teaches a method of securing a pole-piece structure in position (abstract), comprising: providing a solid, non-magnetic material within each of a plurality of channels provided in a pole-piece structure with a longitudinal axis and a plurality of laminate plates, wherein the pole-piece structure is configured for rotation, wherein the plurality of laminate plates are stacked and stacking the laminate plates comprises aligning hollow portion of adjacent plates of the plurality of laminate plates such that apertures located in the hollow portions align to form the plurality of channels, wherein the plurality of channels are axially extending, wherein the non-magnetic material completely fills each of the plurality of channels along an entire axial length of each of the plurality of channels (figures 2 and 3, elements 2b being the ‘solid, non-magnetic material,’ elements 2f being the ‘plurality of laminate plates,’ elements 2e being the ‘plurality of channels,’ element 2 being the ‘pole-piece structure,’ and elements 2g being the ‘hollow portions’ and ‘apertures’; machine translation, paragraphs 17, 24, and 26 – 28).
However, Tojima teaches each of the plurality of laminate plates having a partial ring shape (figure 3b, elements 2f; paragraph 26) rather than a ring formed from a single piece of material. Lee teaches a method of securing a pole-pieces structure in position (abstract), comprising: providing a solid material within each of a plurality of channels provided in a pole-piece structure having a longitudinal axis and a plurality of laminate plates, wherein the pole-piece structure is configured for rotation, wherein the plurality of laminate plates are stacked and stacking the laminate pales comprises aligning hollow portions of adjacent plates of the plurality of laminate plates such that apertures located in the hollow portions align to form the plurality of channels (figures 3 and 6, elements 241 being the ‘solid material,’ elements 222 being the ‘plurality of laminate plates,’ elements 230 being the ‘plurality of channels,’ ‘hollow portions,’ and ‘apertures,’ and element 210 being the ‘pole-piece structure’; machine translation, paragraph 31). Lee further teaches that each of the laminate plates is a ring formed from a single piece of material (figure 6, element 222; paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the shape of the laminate plates of Tojima, which comprise a partial ring shape, for the shape of the laminate plates of Lee, which have a complete ring shape from a single piece of material, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that the shape of either of the laminate plates provide the same benefit of forming a non-magnetic material for a pole-piece structure, as desired by Tojima.
However, Tojima further teaches the non-magnetic materials being bolts that are inserted into the plurality of channels (figure 3a, elements 2b and 2e; machine translation, paragraph 24), rather than a non-magnetic material that is cast within each of the plurality of channels. Buttner teaches a method of securing a pole-piece structure in position (abstract) comprising: providing a solid, non-magnetic material within each of a plurality of channels provided in a pole-piece structure, such that the solid, non-magnetic material completely fills each of the plurality of channels along an entire axial length of the plurality of channels (figure 2, elements 24 being the ‘plurality of channels’ and element 10 being the ‘pole-piece structure’; paragraph 44, wherein the ‘casting compound’ is the ‘solid, non-magnetic material’). Buttner further teaches that the solid, non-magnetic material is formed by casting the non-magnetic material within each of the plurality of channels (figure 2, elements 24; paragraph 44), wherein the non-magnetic material comprises a resin which, upon solidification, holds the laminate plates together (paragraphs 6 – 7 and 44). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the method of providing a solid, non-magnetic material within each of a plurality of channels of Buttner, wherein the non-magnetic material is cast via a resin into the plurality of channels, for the method of Tojima, wherein the non-magnetic material are bolts inserted into the plurality of channels, because one skilled in the art would have recognizes that either casting the non-magnetic material or inserting bolts comprising the non-magnetic material into the channels would provide the same benefit of securing each of a plurality of laminate plates together (Tojima, machine translation, paragraphs 22 and 24; Buttner, paragraphs 6 – 7).
However, Tojima in view of Lee and Buttner does not teach either providing first and second rotating components or providing cavities at the plurality of channels. Bendixen teaches a magnetic gear (abstract), comprising: a pole-piece structure (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘pole piece structure’; paragraphs 53 – 57). Bendixen further teaches providing a first rotating component and a second rotating component, each of said first and second rotating component comprising lips which extend into cavities located at first and second ends of the pole-piece structure, the cavities being located between a first flange and a second flange (figure 2, element 5a being the ‘first rotating component, element 5b being the ‘second rotating component,’ and elements 51 and 52 being the ‘cavities’; paragraphs 53 – 55). It would have been first obvious to one skilled in the art to further provide the first and second rotating components of Bendixen to the method of Tojima in view of Buttner, because Tojima teaches the pole-piece structure being housed in a supporting structure, but does not teach the supporting structure itself (machine translation, paragraph 43) and Bendixen teaches a supporting structure comprising first and second rotating components provides the benefit of providing a simple structure for supporting the pole-piece (paragraph 8), as desired by Tojima. It would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to cast cavities into the first and second ends of the channels and extend lips of the first and second rotating components into each of the cavities, as further taught by Bendixen, because Bendixen teaches that use of the lips and cavities acts to securely affix the pole-piece structure to the first and second rotating components (paragraphs 34, 55, and 57).
As to claim 2, Bendixen teaches that providing the cavities comprises providing a first flange and a second flange around each of the plurality of cavities, and said lips slot into said cavities between said first and second flanges (figure 1, elements 51 and 52; paragraph 55).
As to claim 3, Bendixen teaches that each of the lips of said first rotating component extends into each of the plurality of cavities at the first end of said one or more channels, and each lip of said second rotating component extends into each of the plurality of cavities at the second end of said one or more channels (figure 1, elements 51 and 52; paragraph 55).
As to claim 4, Bendixen teaches moving each of the first and second rotating components to engage with the pole-piece structure such that the lips slot into the cavities so as to secure the pole-piece structure in position (figure 1, elements 5a, 5b, 3, 51, and 52; paragraphs 53 – 56).
As to claim 5, Bendixen teaches that the first and second rotating components are connected to with an input shaft and an output shaft (figure 1, elements 6 and 7; paragraph 53).
As to claim 6, Bendixen teaches that the first and second rotating components are provided at opposite axial ends of a magnetic gear assembly (figure 1, elements 5a and 5b).
As to claim 7, Buttner teaches that the plurality of channels extend in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of said pole-piece structure (figure 2, elements 24 and 10).
As to claim 8, Tojima in view of Buttner and Bendixen teaches that said lips slot into said cavities between said first and second flanges (Bendixen, figure 1, elements 51 and 52).
As to claim 11, Buttner teaches that there are no air gaps between each of the plurality of channels and the solid, non-magnetic material (figure 2, elements 24; paragraph 44).
As to claim 12, Tojima teaches that the pole-piece structure consists of a plurality of laminate plates and said non-magnetic material (figures 2 – 3, elements 2f being the ‘plurality of laminate plates’; machine translation, paragraphs 26 – 27).
As to claim 13, Tojima teaches that each of said laminate plates comprises a plurality of solid portions arranged alternately with a plurality of hollow portions, and one or more apertures are provided in said hollow portions (figures 3a and 3b, elements 2g being the ‘hollow portions’ and ‘apertures’ and portions between elements 2g being the ‘solid portions’; machine translation, paragraphs 24 and 29).
As to claim 14, Tojima teaches that each of said plats are stacked such that said solid portions align so as to form a plurality of magnetic pole-pieces in said pole-piece structure (figures 3a and 3b; paragraphs 24 – 29).
As to claim 15, Tojima teaches that the axially extending channels extend from first end of the pole-piece structure to said second, opposite end of the pole-piece structure (figures 3a and 3b, element 2e).
As to claim 16, Tojima taches that each of said laminate plats are formed from a single piece of material (figures 2 – 3, elements 2f; machine translation, paragraph 26).
As to claim 18, Tojima teaches providing a plurality of inner permanent magnets, and a plurality of outer permanent magnets located concentrically with respect to said inner permanent magnets (figure 1, elements 12 being the ‘plurality of inner permanent magnets’ and elements 34 being the ‘plurality of outer permanent magnets’; machine translation, paragraphs 32 - 34); wherein said pole-piece structure is located between said inner and outer permanent magnets and modulates the magnetic fields product by said inner and outer permanent magnets (figure 1, elements 2, 12, and 34; machine translation, paragraphs 32 – 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant generally argues, on pages 5 – 7, that none of the cited references, Tojima, Lee, Buttner, and Bendixen, individually anticipate of the limitations of claim 1. While Examiner recognizes this, it is the position of the Examiner that Tojima in view of Lee, Buttner, and Bendixen make obvious each of the limitations of claim 1. This is explained and set forth in the rejection above. Examiner notes that Applicant does not argue or otherwise traverse any of the motivations set forth in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726