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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 49 is 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 49 recites, in relevant part, an apparatus comprising “one or more magnetic elements being mountable with respect to at least part of the vehicle,” and later recites “wherein the magnets are configured such that they induce one or more electrical currents in the track, the, or each electrical current creating a magnetic field, such that a force is applied to the vehicle.”
The term “magnetic elements” is introduced as “one or more magnetic elements” at the beginning of claim 49. Later in the same claim, the term “the magnets” is used without any prior introduction or clear identification of what structure is intended by “the magnets.” It is unclear whether “the magnets” is intended to refer to the previously recited “magnetic elements,” to a different set of magnets, or to some other structure entirely. This change in terminology within the same claim, without antecedent basis for “the magnets,” renders the claim indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty what specific structure is required by the claim.
The indefiniteness is not cured by the presence of the phrase “they induce one or more electrical currents” because “they” grammatically refers back to “the magnets,” which itself lacks antecedent basis. The claim thus fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 US 9,254,759 B1 – Hoverboard / hover engine system using rotating magnet arrays (“STARMs”) above a conductive track to generate lift and propulsive forces via induced eddy currents. Key elements include hoverboard 12, track 14, hover engines 16, conductive substrate 14/336, STARM magnet assemblies 330 with magnets 338a, 338b, and eddy currents induced in the conductive track.
REFERENCE 2 CN 112644555 B – Ring-type Halbach magnetic braking device and high-speed train. Discloses an annular Halbach magnet array 1 mounted on a vehicle body 3 via rotary bearing 2, positioned above a high-conductivity induction unit 4 on track beam 5. Rotation and traveling-wave magnetic fields induce eddy currents in the track-side conductive unit 4 to generate braking forces on the train. Sector magnets may be permanent magnets, superconducting magnets, or electromagnets.
REFERENCE 3 US 7,059,252 B2 (and WO 2003/103995 A2 family) – Magnetic levitation car. Discloses a magnetic levitated car 10 with electromagnetic wheels 16 and a magnetic track 17 having magnetic elements 24. Electromagnetic feet 34 on an armature assembly 32 are selectively energized via a commutator assembly 26 including commutator housings 27 and commutator segments 29, 30. As the armature rotates, coils 33 and electromagnetic feet 34 are switched on and off in angular sectors, providing propulsion along track 17.
REFERENCE 4 US 2005/0140144 A1 – Method and system of limiting the application of sand and other friction-modifying agents to a railroad rail. Discloses rails 710, friction-modifying agents 613 (including friction-enhancing agents such as sand), applicators 612, 716, 902, 1004 for applying the agents to rail 710 and wheels of railway cars 706, and controller 606 and locomotive control system 220 receiving data from sensors 602 and auxiliary data 604 to control agent application.
REFERENCE 5 US 5,428,538 A – Sanding control system for railway vehicles. Discloses a sanding system for railway vehicles using a sanding magnet valve SMV to control application of sand to rails to improve wheel-rail adhesion, with automatic and manual control based on operating conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 30, 45, 47, 48, AND 49 REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) AS ANTICIPATED BY REFERENCE 1 (US 9,254,759 B1)
OFFICIAL GROUNDS
Claim(s) 30, 45, 47, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Reference 1 discloses an apparatus and method in which rotating magnet assemblies (“hover engines” including STARMs) mounted to a vehicle (hoverboard 12 and other vehicles) interact with an electrically conductive track 14 to induce eddy currents whose magnetic fields apply forces (lift and propulsion) to the vehicle.
CLAIM 30
An apparatus for applying a force to a vehicle on a track, the apparatus comprising: one or more magnets, the one or more magnets being rotatably mountable with respect to at least part of the vehicle; wherein the track comprises one or more electrically conductive portions; and wherein the magnets are configured such that their rotation relative to the track induces one or more electrical currents in the track, such that a force is applied to the vehicle.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 30
Preamble – “An apparatus for applying a force to a vehicle on a track”
Reference 1 discloses a hoverboard 12 riding over a conductive track 14. The hoverboard includes multiple hover engines 16 that generate lift and propulsive forces on the hoverboard by interaction with a conductive track. The combination of hoverboard 12 (a vehicle) and track 14 (a track with a conductive surface) forms an apparatus whose purpose is to apply forces (lift and propulsion) to the vehicle on the track. Thus, the preamble is met.
“one or more magnets, the one or more magnets being rotatably mountable with respect to at least part of the vehicle”
Reference 1 discloses that each hover engine 16 includes a rotating magnetic assembly referred to as a STARM (Shockless Time-Averaged Rotating Magnet). The STARM 330 carries magnets such as 338a and 338b arranged around a rotor. The STARM is rotated by a motor relative to the vehicle body (hoverboard 12 or other vehicles described in Reference 1). Thus, Reference 1 teaches one or more magnets (magnets 50, 338a, 338b) that are mounted in a rotor (STARM 330) which is rotatably mounted with respect to at least part of the vehicle (hoverboard 12 and other vehicles shown in the patent).
“wherein the track comprises one or more electrically conductive portions”
Reference 1 describes track 14 as being formed from a conductive material, e.g., multiple copper sheets forming a conductive portion of the track. The conductive portion of the substrate 14 is explicitly described as the portion “configured to support induced eddy currents” and may be a solid sheet of metal such as copper, aluminum, or silver. Thus, track 14 comprises one or more electrically conductive portions as claimed.
“and wherein the magnets are configured such that their rotation relative to the track induces one or more electrical currents in the track, such that a force is applied to the vehicle.”
Reference 1 explains that hover engines 16 generate a magnetic field that changes as a function of time and interacts with the conductive material in track 14 to form eddy currents. The eddy currents and their associated magnetic fields interact with the hover engine’s magnetic field to generate forces such as lifting and propulsive forces. Further, Reference 1 describes that as the STARM magnets (e.g., magnets 50, 338a, 338b) rotate above a conductive plate 56, 64, 336, eddy currents are induced in the plate, and these currents produce lift and drag forces.
Thus, the magnets in Reference 1 are configured such that their rotation relative to the conductive track 14 induces electrical currents (eddy currents) in the track, and the resulting interaction between those currents and the magnet field applies forces (lift and propulsion) to the vehicle (hoverboard 12 or other vehicles using hover engines). Claim 30 is therefore fully anticipated by Reference 1.
CLAIM 45
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus is operable to provide an attractive and/or repulsive force between the vehicle and the track.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 45
Claim 45 depends from claim 30 and further specifies the nature of the force.
Reference 1 explicitly teaches that the hover engines 16 generate forces including a lifting force and propulsive forces on the vehicle. The lift force is a repulsive electromagnetic force between the hover engines’ magnets (e.g., magnets in STARM 330) and the conductive track 14, causing the hoverboard 12 to levitate above the track. The induced eddy currents and the magnet fields exert repulsive forces that separate the vehicle from the track, i.e., a repulsive force between the vehicle and the track.
Therefore, the apparatus of Reference 1 is operable to provide at least a repulsive force between the vehicle and track, satisfying claim 45.
CLAIM 47
A method of applying a force to a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: providing an apparatus for applying a force to a vehicle on a track; wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more magnets, the one or more magnets being rotatably mountable with respect to at least part of the vehicle; wherein the track comprises one or more electrically conductive portions; and wherein the magnets are configured such that their rotation relative to the track induces one or more electrical currents in the track, the, or each electrical current creating a magnetic field, such that a force is applied to the vehicle; rotatably mounting the one or more magnets with respect to at least part of the vehicle; and using the apparatus to rotate the one or more magnets with respect to at least a part of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 47
“providing an apparatus for applying a force to a vehicle on a track; wherein the apparatus comprises [the elements of claim 30]”
As analyzed for claim 30, Reference 1 discloses an apparatus comprising a vehicle (hoverboard 12), track 14 with conductive portions, and hover engines 16 with rotating magnet assemblies (STARMs) that induce eddy currents in the track to generate forces on the vehicle. This satisfies the apparatus portion of the method step.
“rotatably mounting the one or more magnets with respect to at least part of the vehicle”
Reference 1 inherently requires that the STARM magnet assemblies (with magnets 50, 338a, 338b) be rotatably mounted relative to the vehicle structure in order to rotate above the track and induce eddy currents. The figures and description make clear that the STARMs are mounted via a motor and shaft to the hover engines mounted on the vehicle. Thus, the step of “rotatably mounting” the magnets is inherent in assembling the hover engines 16 on hoverboard 12 or other vehicles.
“using the apparatus to rotate the one or more magnets with respect to at least a part of the vehicle”
Reference 1 describes the operation of the hover engines by rotating the magnet assemblies relative to the conductive track 14, generating time-varying magnetic fields that induce eddy currents and corresponding lift/propulsive forces on the vehicle. In normal use of the Reference 1 apparatus, the user applies power causing the hover engines to rotate the STARMs and thereby generate the forces. Thus, the method step of using the apparatus to rotate the magnets is inherent in the operation of the system.
According to MPEP § 2112, a method claim is anticipated where the prior art discloses an apparatus that necessarily performs the claimed method steps when used as intended. Reference 1’s apparatus, when provided, assembled, and operated as described, necessarily performs each step of claim 47. Therefore, claim 47 is anticipated by Reference 1.
CLAIM 48
A vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 30.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 48
Reference 1 discloses vehicle 12 (the hoverboard) that includes multiple hover engines 16 mounted to its underside, each containing rotating magnet assemblies interacting with conductive track 14 to generate forces. As established for claim 30, those hover engines 16 and track 14 constitute an apparatus for applying forces to a vehicle on a track using rotating magnets and induced eddy currents.
Thus, Reference 1 discloses a vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 30. Claim 48 is anticipated.
CLAIM 49
An apparatus for applying a force to a vehicle on a track, the apparatus comprising: one or more magnetic elements being mountable with respect to at least part of the vehicle; wherein the track comprises one or more electrically conductive portions; and wherein the magnets are configured such that they induce one or more electrical currents in the track, the, or each electrical current creating a magnetic field, such that a force is applied to the vehicle.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 49
Indefiniteness of claim 49 has been addressed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Notwithstanding the indefiniteness, a prior art analysis is provided to advance prosecution in the event of amendment. See MPEP § 2173.02.
“one or more magnetic elements being mountable with respect to at least part of the vehicle”
Reference 1 discloses hover engines 16 incorporating STARM assemblies 330 carrying magnets 338a, 338b (and magnets 50 in other figures) which are mounted to the bottom of vehicle 12 or other vehicles described in the patent. These magnets and their supporting frames are “magnetic elements” mountable with respect to the vehicle.
“wherein the track comprises one or more electrically conductive portions”
As in claim 30, Reference 1’s track 14 includes a conductive portion (e.g., copper sheets) configured to support induced eddy currents.
“wherein the magnets are configured such that they induce one or more electrical currents in the track, the, or each electrical current creating a magnetic field, such that a force is applied to the vehicle”
Reference 1 describes that the rotating magnet configurations in the hover engines induce eddy currents in the conductive track, and that these eddy currents have associated magnetic fields that interact with the magnet fields to generate forces, including lift and propulsion, on the vehicle. As the magnets move, they “are configured such that they induce” these currents and fields; no additional structure is required by claim 49 beyond what Reference 1 already discloses.
Thus, to the extent the terms “magnetic elements” and “magnets” are construed to refer to the same structures as in Reference 1, claim 49’s substantive limitations are fully met by Reference 1. Claim 49 is therefore anticipated, subject to the claim being amended to render its language definite.
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.
CLAIMS 31, 37, AND 38 REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 (AND THE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF USING ELECTROMAGNETS WITH VARIABLE CURRENT)
OFFICIAL GROUNDS
Claim(s) 31, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and the ordinary skill in the art.
Reference 1 provides the base apparatus as in claim 30. Reference 2 teaches the use of annular Halbach array magnets 1 that may be permanent magnets, superconducting magnets, or electromagnets, and thus have controllable field strength via electrical excitation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the magnets in Reference 1’s hover engines as electromagnets and to provide control over their excitation in order to adjust the magnetic fields and forces, as explained below for each claim.
CLAIM 31
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus is operable to vary the magnetic field strength of the, or each, magnet.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 31
Claim 31 depends from claim 30. Reference 1, as noted, uses permanent magnets 50, 338a, 338b in the STARM assemblies, and varying the rotational speed and lift height changes the effective lift and drag forces. However, Reference 1 does not expressly disclose varying the magnetic field strength of each magnet itself.
Reference 2 describes a ring-type Halbach array magnet 1 used as a braking device mounted on a vehicle body 3 via rotating bearing 2 above an induction unit 4 on track beam 5. The Halbach magnet 1 is composed of multiple sector magnets, and claim 3 of Reference 2 expressly states that each sector magnet can be a permanent magnet, a superconducting magnet, or an electromagnet. Where the sector magnet is an electromagnet, the field strength is inherently adjustable by varying the excitation current, as is conventional.
A person of ordinary skill in the art of maglev and eddy-current based levitation/braking systems would understand that using electromagnets instead of permanent magnets in rotating arrays allows dynamic control of the magnetic field strength and thus of braking, lift, and propulsion forces. Applying this teaching to the hover engines of Reference 1 (replacing or augmenting permanent magnets with electromagnets under control of the vehicle’s power electronics) would provide the apparatus with the capability to vary the magnetic field strength of each magnet. This is a straightforward substitution of one known type of magnet (electromagnets) for another (permanent magnets) in a similar context for a predictable result (variable field strength), consistent with MPEP § 2143 and KSR v. Teleflex.
Therefore, claim 31 is obvious over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 31
It would have been obvious to use electromagnets or otherwise controllable magnets in the rotating magnet arrays of Reference 1 to allow the operator or control system to tune the levitation and propulsion forces for different operating conditions (load, speed, track geometry) and to limit heating of the conductive track by reducing field strength when less force is needed. Reference 2 shows that practitioners in the same field already consider replacing permanent magnets with electromagnets in rotating Halbach arrays for better control of braking force. Accordingly, combining Reference 1 with this teaching to allow variation of magnet field strength is a predictable and advantageous modification within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 37
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein at least one of the magnet(s) is an electromagnet.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 37
Reference 1 provides the basic apparatus of claim 30 but uses permanent magnets. Reference 2 explicitly teaches that the sector magnets in the ring Halbach array 1 can be electromagnets.
It would have been obvious to implement at least one of the magnets in Reference 1’s STARM as an electromagnet (for example, to allow fine adjustment of local field distribution or to act as a controllable “helper” coil) based on the teaching of Reference 2 and the general knowledge that electromagnets provide tunable magnetic fields. This modification does not require any change in the overall mode of operation: the electromagnet(s) would still be part of a rotating magnetic array inducing eddy currents in a conductive track, just with adjustable excitation.
Thus, claim 37 is obvious over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 37
Using one or more electromagnets in place of, or in addition to, permanent magnets in the rotating array gives the designer an extra degree of control over the magnetic field distribution (for example, to tailor the lift-to-drag ratio, to compensate for manufacturing tolerances, or to implement progressive start-up/shut-down modes). Reference 2 indicates that electromagnets are a recognized option for rotating Halbach arrays used with conductive tracks, making the substitution of an electromagnet into Reference 1’s hover engine a simple design choice with predictable performance benefits.
CLAIM 38
The apparatus of claim 37, wherein the apparatus comprises a control system, wherein the control system comprises one or more selection devices operable to selectively provide electrical power to at least one of the one or more magnets.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 38
Claim 38 adds a control system with selection devices for selectively providing electrical power to the electromagnets of claim 37.
Reference 1 already describes a guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) system that controls the hover engines’ rotational velocity, tilt, and other parameters using data from sensors. While the device in Reference 1 energizes permanent magnets via mechanical motion rather than electrical current, it plainly incorporates a control system for controlling the hover engines.
Reference 2, in describing electromagnets as potential sector magnets in the Halbach ring 1, implies that electrical power is supplied to those magnets and that such supply can be controlled. It is a basic principle of electromagnet usage that power is routed through switches or selection devices to energize or de-energize particular coils.
Further, Reference 3 explicitly discloses a system in which electromagnetic feet 34 in electromagnetic wheels 16 are energized selectively via commutator assembly 26 and commutator segments 29, 30. The commutator and brushes 36 form “selection devices” that provide electrical power to particular electromagnets (electromagnetic feet 34) only when those elements are in desired angular positions.
Combining these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a control system in Reference 1 that includes power electronics (such as switches, solid-state relays, or commutator-like elements) configured as selection devices to selectively energize the electromagnets of claim 37. This is a straightforward application of known control architectures for electromagnets to the hover engine context.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 38
Providing a control system that selectively powers electromagnets enables dynamic control of forces, improves energy efficiency (by de-energizing magnets when not needed), and reduces thermal loading in both magnets and track. Reference 3 shows that selective energization of electromagnets is standard practice in vehicle propulsion systems, and applying similar selection devices to the electromagnets suggested by Reference 2 in the rotating magnet array of Reference 1 is an obvious design choice for an engineer seeking more control over the forces generated by the hover engines.
CLAIMS 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 39-42REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCES 2 AND 3 (AND THE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF MULTI-PHASE ELECTROMAGNET CONTROL)
OFFICIAL GROUNDS
Claim(s) 32, 33, 39, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, together with the ordinary skill in the motor control art.
Reference 1 provides rotating magnet arrays interacting with a conductive track to produce forces. Reference 2 supplies the notion of using electromagnets in such arrays, and Reference 3 shows sector-based switching of electromagnets around a wheel using commutators and brushes, analogous to activation/deactivation zones and phase switching. Multi-phase power control and switching between phases are basic skills in electric motor design.
Each claim is addressed in turn.
CLAIM 32
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus is operable to switch the magnetic polarity, or to move the location of the poles, of the, or each, magnet.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 32
Reference 1 already teaches rotating magnet configurations (e.g., STARM 330 with magnets 338a, 338b) that create a moving pattern of magnetic poles relative to the track. As the STARM rotates, the north and south poles of individual magnets move relative to the track surface, effectively moving the locations of the interacting poles along the track.
Reference 2 discloses a Halbach ring 1 assembled from multiple sector magnets whose magnetization directions can be chosen to create strong field regions and weak field regions around the circumference. By adjusting which sector magnets are energized (in electromagnet embodiments) or by re-orienting sector magnets, the effective locations of magnetic poles around the ring can be altered.
Reference 3 discloses that electromagnets around a wheel (electromagnetic feet 34) are selectively powered via a commutator 26 and brushes 36 as the wheel rotates. When a given coil is energized, it presents an active magnetic pole; when de-energized, its effective pole disappears. As the wheel rotates and vanes 34 move past commutator segments 29, 30, the location of active poles moves around the wheel.
Combining these teachings, with magnets implemented as electromagnets per Reference 2, it would have been obvious to provide control that can reverse current direction through a given electromagnet (thus switching its magnetic polarity) or to selectively energize electromagnets at different positions around the rotating assembly (thus changing the physical location of active poles). This is identical in principle to reversing polarity and shifting commutation zones in polyphase or DC motor design, which is well within ordinary skill.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 32
Being able to switch the polarity of individual magnets or move the effective pole locations allows finer control of force direction (e.g., to reverse thrust or adjust lift-to-drag ratios) and can be used to shape force profiles for comfort or efficiency. Reference 3’s commutation scheme and the general electric motor art show that controlling where and when poles appear around a rotor is standard practice. Applying these ideas to the electromagnet-enhanced hover engine of Reference 1 is a natural, predictable extension to achieve more sophisticated control.
CLAIM 33
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus is operable to configure the, or each, magnet between an on state, in which the magnet produces a magnetic field, and the off state, in which the magnet does not produce a magnetic field.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 33
For electromagnets, “on” corresponds to energized (current flowing, producing a field) and “off” corresponds to de-energized (no current, negligible field). Reference 2 teaches that the sector magnets in Halbach ring 1 may be electromagnets. Reference 3 shows that electromagnetic feet 34 are energized only when brushes 36 contact commutator segments 29, 30; in the open commutator sector, no current flows and the electromagnet is effectively off.
Applying these teachings to Reference 1, once magnets in the rotating STARM are implemented as electromagnets (as in the analysis for claims 31 and 37), adding switches or commutator-like elements to control current is straightforward, making each magnet configurable between an on state (energized, producing a field) and an off state (de-energized, minimal field). This is exactly how the electromagnetic feet in Reference 3 operate.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 33
Providing on/off control of individual magnets allows the system to reduce power consumption, limit heating, and avoid unnecessary forces when a magnet is not in a useful position relative to the track. Reference 3 demonstrates the benefit of such on/off commutation around a wheel. Integrating a similar on/off control into the electromagnets of a hover engine system like Reference 1 is a predictable and routine modification for someone skilled in magnetic propulsion and motor control.
CLAIM 34
The apparatus of claim 33, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more activation zones and one or more deactivation zones, the, or each, activation zone and the, or each, deactivation zone(s) being defined by sectors of a plane of rotation of the magnet, or magnets, the apparatus being operable to configure the magnet(s) to be in the on state when located in an activation zone and to be in the off state when located in a deactivation zone.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 34
Claim 34 builds on the on/off control of claim 33 by specifying that activation and deactivation zones are defined as sectors in the plane of rotation.
Reference 3 discloses a magnetic levitated car 10 with electromagnetic wheels 16. The wheel includes an armature assembly 32 with multiple electromagnetic feet 34 spaced around its circumference and a commutator assembly 26 with commutator housings 27 and commutator segments 29, 30 that extend over only part of the circumference. The energized regions (where brushes 36 contact commutator segments 29, 30) define angular sectors where electromagnets 34 are “on”; the remaining angular region (where there is an open gap and no commutator contact) defines a sector where the electromagnets are “off.” Thus, Reference 3 inherently defines activation and deactivation zones as sectors of the plane of rotation.
Applying this concept to the rotating magnets in Reference 1 (e.g., STARM magnets 338a, 338b around a rotor), implementing the magnets as electromagnets and controlling their energization vs. de-energization using a commutator-like or sensor-based switching pattern would naturally define activation zones (sectors where magnets are energized) and deactivation zones (sectors where they are off) in the plane of rotation. This is an obvious extension of Reference 3’s arrangement to the STARM geometry.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 34
Restricting energization to certain sectors (activation zones) and turning magnets off in other sectors reduces unnecessary power consumption and heating while focusing forces where they are most useful. Reference 3 demonstrates this advantage for electromagnetic wheels. A skilled artisan modifying Reference 1 to use electromagnets and sector-dependent energization would reasonably adopt this same technique, making the claimed arrangement an obvious design choice.
CLAIM 35
The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the activation zone, or zones, is located at a region of the vehicle that is, in use, adjacent to at least a portion of the track, and/or wherein the activation zone, or zones, is located at a lower region of the vehicle or a lower region of a wheel of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 35
Claim 35 specifies that activation zones are located where the magnets are adjacent to the track or at lower regions of the vehicle/wheel.
In Reference 1, the hover engines 16 are mounted beneath the hoverboard 12 so that the rotating STARM magnets 338a, 338b are closest to track 14 at the underside of the vehicle. Any reasonable definition of activation zones for electromagnets in such a configuration would place these zones where the magnets are near the conductive track (i.e., at the lower region of the vehicle adjacent to the track), to maximize interaction and force.
Reference 3 explicitly shows electromagnetic wheels 16 at the bottom of car body 11, with electromagnetic feet 34 interacting with magnetic track 17 located below the car. The active sectors where electromagnetic feet 34 are energized (activation zones) are necessarily at the lower region of the vehicle, adjacent to the track, since that is where the wheels and feet are physically located.
Hence, for a STARM-based system with sectorized activation and deactivation as in claim 34, placing activation zones at the lower region adjacent to the track is an inherent and obvious configuration patterned after Reference 3.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 35
For maximum force coupling in any rail-based magnetic propulsion or levitation system, the active magnets are placed as close as practical to the track. Thus, locating activation zones where magnets are adjacent to the track is both physically necessary and inherently obvious. Reference 3 confirms that activation zones for electromagnets around a wheel are at the lower region adjacent to the track, so an engineer implementing sector-based magnet activation in Reference 1’s hover engines would naturally adopt the same placement.
CLAIM 36
The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the apparatus is configured such that the, or each, magnet is activated for a shorter period of time than it is deactivated.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 36
Claim 36 adds a temporal condition: each magnet is “on” for shorter time than “off.”
Reference 3 describes that the commutator assembly 26 covers “at least three quarters of a ring,” leaving a remaining quarter open so that electromagnetic feet 34 are de-energized over that open region. In that specific example, the magnets are energized for more of the rotation (three quarters on, one quarter off). However, the design of a commutator or electronic switching scheme allows the designer to vary the coverage and timing. Using shorter conductive sectors and longer gaps would invert the duty cycle, yielding shorter on-time than off-time.
Once a person of ordinary skill recognizes, from Reference 3, that commutator segments (or their electronic equivalents) define angular activation periods, adjusting the angular width (duty cycle) of the segments to change the relative on/off time of each magnet is a routine tuning parameter. For applications where heating or energy usage must be limited, it would be obvious to reduce the on-time relative to off-time while still providing enough force for operation.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 36
Duty cycle control of electromagnets (adjusting how long they are energized in each cycle) is a standard technique for managing heat and power consumption while maintaining required performance. In adapting Reference 3’s sector-based coiling to a hover engine or similar STARM apparatus, an engineer would naturally consider adjusting segment widths and timing to set a duty cycle that balances force generation and thermal limits—e.g., by making on-segments smaller (shorter activation) and off-segments larger (longer deactivation), as claimed.
CLAIM 39
The apparatus of claim 38, wherein the apparatus is operable to change the location of at least one of the activation zone(s) and at least one of the deactivation zone(s).
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 39
Claim 39 depends from claim 38’s control system with selection devices.
Reference 3 shows an arrangement where commutator housings 27 and their associated commutator segments 29, 30 define angular regions around the wheel where electromagnetic feet 34 are energized (activation zones) or not (deactivation zones). By changing the relative angular position between the commutator assembly 26 and the armature assembly 32 or by altering which commutator segments are connected to power, the effective activation and deactivation zones can be shifted to different angular locations around the wheel.
In modern implementations, similar effects are achieved electronically by changing the timing of phase-switching signals in brushless motor controllers, effectively moving the “activation windows” for each phase relative to the rotor position.
With magnets in Reference 1’s STARM implemented as electromagnets and selection devices controlling their energization (claim 38), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the control system with the ability to adjust the angular ranges (activation zones) during which particular magnets are energized, thereby changing the locations of activation and deactivation zones. This is directly analogous to adjusting commutation timing to advance or retard motor phases.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 39
Changing the locations of activation and deactivation zones allows optimization of performance across operating conditions (e.g., speed, load) and can reduce losses or noise. The motor control art and Reference 3’s commutator design both provide a clear roadmap: shifting the energization pattern relative to rotor position to adjust torque and efficiency. Incorporating such zone-shifting in a STARM-based hover engine is an obvious extension.
CLAIM 40
The apparatus of claim 39, wherein the, or each, activation zone is associated with a phase line of an electrical power supply of the apparatus, such that when a magnet is located in a particular activation zone, that activation zone's associated phase line will be applied to that magnet.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 40
Claim 40 introduces the notion that activation zones correspond to electrical phases.
In polyphase electric motors, it is standard that stator or rotor positions are associated with different phase windings, and that as a rotor moves into a particular angular region, a specific phase line applies current to the corresponding winding.
Reference 3’s commutator assembly 26 effectively associates physical sectors around the wheel with particular contact segments 29, 30 that are wired to the power supply; when electromagnetic foot 34 is in a given sector, the corresponding phase or polarity is applied via the brushes 36 contacting the commutator segment.
Applying these principles to the electromagnet-enhanced STARM of Reference 1, a person of ordinary skill would naturally arrange control such that when a magnet enters a predefined activation zone, a specific phase line (for example, one of several distinct phase conductors in a multi-phase supply) is switched to that magnet. This is functionally identical to conventional motor commutation and phase control, and nothing in claim 40 requires more than this conventional behavior.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 40
Associating activation zones with phase lines is a fundamental concept in the design of multi-phase motors, allowing smooth and controlled torque production. For a levitation/propulsion system using rotating electromagnets, applying known phase-based commutation strategies would be an obvious way to enhance control over force direction and magnitude. Thus, configuring activation zones as claimed is a routine application of known phase control to the STARM/hover engine context.
CLAIM 41
The apparatus of claim 38, wherein the control system is configured to switch the, or each, magnet between at least a first phase of electrical power to a second phase of electrical power.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 41
Claim 41 recites switching magnets between different phases of electrical power.
In conventional multi-phase motor systems, individual windings are switched between different phases (e.g., three-phase power) as the rotor moves to maintain torque and control direction. Reference 3 shows a simpler DC-like commutator arrangement but still involves switching between positive and negative commutator segments (effectively two phases or polarities) as the wheel rotates.
Given the general knowledge that electromagnets in rotating machinery can be (and typically are) switched between different phases or polarities to control movement, it would have been obvious that a control system for electromagnets in a rotating STARM (as suggested by References 1 and 2 and detailed in claim 38) would be configured to switch those magnets between at least a first phase and a second phase of electrical power (e.g., different phase lines or polarities) as needed to control the direction and magnitude of forces.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 41
Switching between phases, including reversing polarity or moving between distinct phase lines, is the basic mechanism by which polyphase motors and commutated DC machines generate controlled torque. Applying the same principle to a rotating magnet array used for levitation and propulsion is a direct, predictable extension using well-established motor control techniques, and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 42
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus comprises a frame member, wherein the, or each magnet, is located on the frame member, and wherein the frame member is integrally formed with a wheel of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 42
Claim 42 introduces a structure where the magnets are on a frame member integrally formed with a wheel of the vehicle.
Reference 1 discloses not only hoverboard 12 but also other vehicles with rotating magnet assemblies interacting with conductive masses, including a wheel 850 having a conductive mass 864 and a hover engine 866 with STARM 868 arranged near the wheel to transfer torque via eddy currents. The hover engine STARM 868 is separate from the wheel in the depicted embodiment, but the concept is that a rotating magnet array near a conductive wheel produces torque via eddy currents.
Reference 3 discloses a magnetic levitated car 10 with electromagnetic wheels 16. Each wheel 16 integrates an armature assembly 32 and electromagnetic feet 34 around its circumference, forming a wheel structure that includes the magnets (electromagnets 34) as part of the wheel assembly, with the wheel running on track 17. In effect, the magnets are on a frame member integral with the wheel.
A person of ordinary skill combining these teachings would see that instead of mounting a separate hover engine 866 near a conductive wheel as in Reference 1, one can incorporate the magnet frame (analogous to armature assembly 32 and electromagnetic feet 34) as part of the wheel structure itself, thereby forming a frame member integrally formed with a wheel having magnets located on it. This can reduce part count and allow direct interaction between the wheel-integrated magnets and a conductive track.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 42
Integrating the magnet-carrying frame into the wheel simplifies mechanical design (fewer separate rotating assemblies), reduces weight, and can improve reliability and packaging. Reference 3’s electromagnetic wheels demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of such integration. A designer working from Reference 1’s hover engine-to-wheel concept would be reasonably motivated to adopt a wheel-integrated magnet frame as in Reference 3 to obtain these advantages.
CLAIMS 43 AND 44 REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4 (AND REFERENCE 5)
OFFICIAL GROUNDS
Claim(s) 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4 and Reference 5.
Reference 1 provides the eddy-current-based magnetic propulsion/levitation apparatus. References 4 and 5 together demonstrate that traction assistance devices applying sand or other friction-modifying agents to wheels and rails to increase traction are well-known in railway systems, and that such systems can be controlled based on sensed conditions.
CLAIM 43
The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus comprises a traction assistance device operable to increase the traction of a wheel of the vehicle to the track, wherein the traction assistance device is operable to apply a traction agent to at least a portion of a wheel of the vehicle and/or to at least a portion of the track.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 43
Reference 1 describes vehicles (e.g., hoverboard 12 and other vehicles with hover engines) operating over a conductive track 14. In some embodiments, vehicles with wheels (such as wheel 850 interacting with conductive mass 864) are shown, where hover engines transfer torque to the wheel via eddy-current interaction. While Reference 1 focuses on magnetic forces rather than conventional traction, the general vehicle-and-track context is similar to rail vehicles.
Reference 4 discloses a traction management system in which friction-modifying agents 613 (including friction-enhancing materials such as sand) are applied to rails 710 by applicators 612, 716, 902, 1004 on locomotives or rail cars 706 to adjust wheel-rail adhesion. The agents 613 can be applied either to the rail surface or to wheels; controllers 606 control timing and amount of application based on sensor data 602 and other parameters. Reference 5 similarly shows a sanding system using a sanding magnet valve SMV to apply sand to track rails to improve wheel-rail adhesion.
Given Reference 1’s system already contemplates vehicles operating on tracks and, in some embodiments, includes wheels, a person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally apply the well-known concept of adding a traction assistance device to increase wheel-track traction where appropriate (for startup, braking, or emergency conditions). Implementing a traction agent applicator similar to those in References 4 and 5 (e.g., a sand or other traction material dispenser aimed at the wheel–track contact area) in the context of a magnetically assisted vehicle would be a straightforward adaptation.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 43
Rail traction enhancement via sand and other friction-modifying agents is a long-established practice, used to improve safety and performance under slippery conditions. The combination of magnetic forces from the hover engines (Reference 1) with a conventional traction assistance system (References 4 and 5) provides complementary benefits: magnetic forces support or supplement traction, while the traction agent directly affects wheel–track friction. A skilled engineer would be motivated to include such a traction assistance device to maintain adequate traction in adverse conditions or to support transition phases between wheel-on-rail and full magnetic levitation operation.
CLAIM 44
The apparatus of claim 43, wherein the, or each, magnet of the apparatus is operable to attract the traction agent to the wheel of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS FOR CLAIM 44
Claim 44 adds the idea that the apparatus magnets attract the traction agent to the wheel.
References 4 and 5 disclose the use of sand and other friction-modifying materials applied to rails and wheels. While these references do not explicitly state that the material is magnetic, it is a matter of common knowledge that iron-based or ferromagnetic particulate materials can be used as traction enhancers, and that magnets can be used to hold or guide such particles.
Reference 1 provides strong magnetic fields at the underside of the vehicle (hover engines 16 and STARM magnets 338a, 338b) adjacent to the track. A person of ordinary skill, seeking to integrate a traction agent with a magnet-rich environment, would appreciate that making the traction agent magnetically responsive (e.g., by using ferromagnetic particles) and positioning the magnets so that their field attracts the agent toward the wheel or wheel region would help retain the agent where needed and reduce loss of material.
Thus, combining magnetic traction assistance (via the field) with physical traction enhancement (via granular agent) by using the same magnets to attract the agent is an obvious design refinement that leverages existing system components.
MOTIVATION FOR CLAIM 44
Using the existing magnets in a magnetic propulsion system to manipulate magnetically responsive traction agents is an efficient way to ensure that the agent remains concentrated in the desired contact region and not scattered. This reduces waste and may improve the consistency of traction enhancement. Given References 1, 4, and 5, a person of ordinary skill would recognize the benefit of synergistically using the high-field magnets already present in the system to attract and hold a ferromagnetic traction material in place at the wheel, making claim 44 an obvious refinement.
CLAIM 46 REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
OFFICIAL GROUNDS
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.