DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 18 December 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1-5 are now pending in the application, with claims 3-5 being withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 7 of the Remarks) alleges that “the Examiner has not provided a convincing or persuasive reason” to combine the teachings of the prior art references. However, no explanation or evidence is provided in support of this broad allegation. Thus, the Applicant's argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 8-13 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, that the flywheel system of the present invention and that of Gabrys are significantly different from one another because of the alleged difference in stress distribution results in entirely different strength designs and different material designs for the flywheel unit. The argument then references figures showing graphs of stress distributions within hollow and solid disks. However, these figures, and all of the supporting evidence in this argument, relate to examples given in the relevant references from which they are drawn, and are not found in either the present application or any of the cited references. Further, no explanation or evidence is provided showing any connection between this stress distribution, the invention, or any of the cited references.
Thus, this argument is unpersuasive for multiple reasons. First, without any showing of the relevance of the stress distribution figure, it cannot be said that any of the information shown therein is applicable to the cited references. Second, the features discussed in the argument, i.e. solid versus hollow disks, do not appear to be recited in the claims; although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Lastly, the argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 8 and 12 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, that Gabrys does not disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, forming the flywheels from “tangentially fiber-reinforced plastic”, because Gabrys discloses only “solid steel”. While new grounds of rejection under Atkins have been added to address the new limitation in its entirety, the allegation that Gabrys discloses only steel is not persuasive. Gabrys specifically discloses that flywheels are known to be made from “various materials including steel as well as advanced carbon fiber composites that allow for much higher speeds” (page 1, lines 14-16). Thus, this argument is not persuasive and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as discussed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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(s) 1-2 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pair of rotary mass circular wheels are made of tangentially fiber-reinforced plastic”. It is unclear to what the term “tangentially”, in the aforementioned limitation, refers. The phrase appears to be incomplete, possibly missing one or more words indicating what element is intended to be tangential. Thus, this limitations renders the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of advancing prosecution, this term is interpreted as referring to the direction in which the fibers are wound. This interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the application, which discloses “winding and strengthening carbon fibers… in the circumferential direction” (¶ 0049 of the specification).
Claim 2 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 1.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrys (WO 2010/074752 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Gabrys”, in view of Yoshino et al. (US 2010/0052452 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Yoshino”, and Atkins (US 2012/0190461 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Atkins”.
Regarding claim 1, Gabrys discloses a flywheel energy storage system [30] (fig. 1; page 1, lines 24-29) comprising:
an electrical motor/generator unit [37-40] configured to mutually convert electrical energy and rotational motion energy (fig. 1; page 1, lines 29-35; page 8, lines 26-35); and
a flywheel unit [31] configured to store energy as rotational motion (page 8, lines 26-35),
wherein the flywheel unit [31] includes one or more support shafts [46,47] of which a central axis coincides with a rotation axis of the flywheel unit [31] (page 9, lines 4-14), a pair of flywheel hubs [34,35,36] coaxially supported by the one or more support shafts [46,47] (fig. 1; page 8, lines 30-31; each flywheel has a central portion fit around the aluminum tube, both these central portions and the tube are readable on the “hubs”), and a pair of rotary mass circular wheels [34w,35w] provided on an outer periphery of each of the flywheel hubs [34,35,36] (fig. 1; page 8, lines 30-35),
the electrical motor/generator unit [37-40] includes a stator unit [40] formed by a coreless induction coil [91] provided between the pair of flywheel hubs [34h,35h,36] (fig. 1, 4; page 10, lines 1-23), and a rotor unit that [37,38] faces the coreless induction coil [91] of the stator unit [40] and is formed by a yokeless annular permanent magnet array [37,38] held by each of the flywheel hubs [34,35,36] (fig. 1; page 8, lines 26-35), and
PNG
media_image1.png
576
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a housing [32] that supports the one or more support shafts [46,47] to accommodate both the electrical motor/generator unit [37-40] and the flywheel unit [31] (fig. 1; page 8, lines 26-28).
Gabrys does not disclose the annular permanent magnet arrays [37,38] being arranged in a Halbach array.
Yoshino discloses a rotor [10] for an electric motor, comprising an annular permanent magnet array [12] (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0031), wherein the magnets [12A-1,12A-2,12B-1,12B-2] of the magnet array [12] are arranged as a Halbach array (fig. 1-4, 7-8; ¶ 0032-0033).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
817
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the annular permanent magnets of Gabrys in Halbach arrays as taught by Yoshino, in order to reduce the leakage of magnetic flux to the back surface of the magnets thereby increasing the amount of effective magnetic flux while allowing for a reduction in the size and weight of the rotor (¶ 0032 of Yoshino).
Gabrys, in view of Yoshino, still does not disclose that the pair of rotary mass circular wheels [34w,35w] are made of tangentially {wound} fiber-reinforced plastic.
Atkins discloses a flywheel energy storage system comprising a flywheel [30] including a support shaft [60] on which a rotary mass circular wheel [40] is mounted (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0062-0063), wherein the rotary mass circular wheel [40] is made of tangentially wound fiber-reinforced plastic (¶ 0063; “support member (40) is preferably a carbon fibre composite, wound in a circumferential direction”; ¶ 0056; “composite material, for example a wound carbon fibre and resin”).
PNG
media_image3.png
541
813
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotary mass circular wheels of Gabrys from tangentially wound fiber-reinforced plastic, such as the carbon fiber and resin composite taught by Atkins, in order to provide a high enough hoop strength to counteract centrifugal forces acting on the flywheel when rotated at high speeds (¶ 0060, 0063 of Atkins).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Gabrys, in view of Yoshino and Atkins, discloses the flywheel energy storage system [30] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein one or more, or all of the flywheel hub [34,35,36], the support shafts [46,47], and the housing [32] are made of at least one of aluminum, titanium, alloys including at least one of aluminum or titanium, or a carbon fiber reinforced plastic (page 8, lines 29-31; the central hub is made of aluminum; page 1, lines 14-16; flywheels are known to be made from “various materials including steel as well as advanced carbon fiber composites that allow for much higher speeds”).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Gabrys et al. (US 2008/0231131 A1) discloses a flywheel energy storage system comprising an air-core stator winding axially opposed to permanent magnet rotors each having a flywheel mass and being connected to separate support shafts.
Kloepzig et al. (US 2005/0231057 A1) discloses an electrical machine comprising a permanent magnet rotor with magnets arranged in a Halbach array.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834