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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/6/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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 14 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.
In claim 14 “at least one section comprises a winding loop belonging to one phase, but does not comprise winding loops belonging to other phases” is unclear.
The specification discloses the above limitation in fig. 10, where each stator section has a loop 2a from one phase (pg 34, 2nd to 3rd paragraph). Claim 1 recites that “at least 2 different of said sections, each comprise a winding loop from the same said phase winding”.
It is unclear how one section can comprise only one phase winding loop while at the same time comprise a winding loop of a different phase. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as at least one section comprises a winding loop belonging to one phase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites “each of at least 2 different of said sections comprises a winding loop from the same said phase winding” which is previously recited in claim 1 (lns 13-14). Additionally claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 which requires at least 3 different sections comprising a winding loop from the same phase. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouillange (FR2606951, “Pouillange”) in view of Mita et al. (US20150035388, “Mita”).
Re claim 1, Pouillange discloses a rotating electrical machine, being a modulated pole machine operating by switching of magnetic flux (pg 4, last 4 paragraphs), comprising:
a rotor (figs 8-9, pg 4, 12th to 15th para; made up sections 50; note: employing figs 8-9 for rejection but has similar structure as figs 1-6);
a stator (figs 8-9, pg 5, 5th to 9th para; made up of sections 60); and
a winding (figs 8-9, pg 5, 5th to 9th para; made up of coils 63 of sections 60);
wherein said winding comprises at least two phase windings (fig 8, pg 3, 17th para, pg 4, 1st para & pg 6, 1st para);
wherein said rotor and stator comprise respective sections 50, 60 interleaved with each other via more than 4 air gaps (figs 8-9, pg 5, 19th para), said air gaps are parallel to a direction of rotation (figs 8-9, plane of air gap between 50 & 60 is parallel to a plane that 50 rotates in), said direction of rotation being the direction of movement of said rotor relative to said stator at said airgaps (figs 8-9);
wherein at least 2 different of said sections 60, each comprise a winding loop 63 from the same said phase winding (figs 8-9, pg 3, 17th para, pg 4, 1st para & pg 6, 1st para; each section 60 has six sectors or coils 63; runs on three phase power so at least two coils 63 in each section are from one phase or two coils per phase); and
wherein at least one of said sections 50 being part of said rotor is an isolated rotor section which comprises electrically non-conducting structure material (fig 8, pg 5, 3rd para, composite material); and
wherein said winding loop 63 encloses magnetic flux from at least 5 adjacent magnetic poles 61 at an airgap (fig 8, pg 5, 6th para, fig 8 shows 6 poles 61 surrounded by 63 but specification appears to disclose 8 poles 61-see pg 5, 6th para & claim 1) and that said winding loop 63 encloses a total magnetic flux that is larger than the magnetic flux from one individual magnetic pole 61 (fig 9, since there are at least six poles 61 the total flux of the poles will be more than two poles 61), wherein said adjacent magnetic poles 61 are provided in at least one of said rotor and said stator (fig 8, stator).
Pouillange discloses claim 1 except for said stator comprises permanents magnets, wherein said electrical machine becomes a variable reluctance permanent magnet machine which operates by switching of magnetic flux.
Mita discloses the moving armature 1 comprises permanent magnets 1c-d and magnetic cores 1b (figs 1-2, [0079]), with a winding loop 1a wound around the permanent magnets and magnetic cores (figs 1-2. [0079]) and the stator 2 has magnetic poles 2a-b of magnetic material (figs 1-2, [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the stator of Pouillange to comprise permanent magnets and the rotor to comprise magnetic poles of magnetic material, as disclosed by Mita, in order to reduce the number of permanent magnets used for the electric machine, as taught by Mita ([0098]).
Specifically Mita teaches positioning the permanent magnets inside the winding loop of the moving armature as opposed to the stator, since there is only one winding loop and the stator is long and would require a larger quantity of permanent magnets ([0052]).
Pouillange discloses each rotor section 50 has 128 permanent magnets and there are eleven rotor sections (pg 5, 18th para), resulting in 1,408 permanent magnets. Configuring the permanent magnets between the stator magnetic poles 61 of Pouillange in the manner as disclosed by Mita (fig 2) results in 504 permanent magnets (pg 5, 19th para, 12 stator sections 60 w/ 8 magnetic poles per winding loop or 7 permanent magnets per winding loop & 6 winding loops per stator section).
In view of this one in the art would be motivated to configure the permanent magnets on the stator of Pouillange in order to reduce the amount of magnets used in the electrical machine.
It is pointed out that Pouillange in view of Mita disclose said electrical machine becomes a variable reluctance permanent magnet machine which operates by switching of magnetic flux, since Pouillange discloses the electrical machine operates by switching of magnetic flux (pg 4, last 4 paragraphs); and Mita discloses permanent magnets within the winding loop and discloses a similar operation as Pouillange (figs 5-7).
Re claim 3, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses said winding loop 63 encloses magnetic flux from n magnetic poles of the same polarity (fig 8, pg 5, 6th para, fig 8 shows 6 poles 61 surrounded by 63 but specification appears to disclose 8 poles 61-see pg 5, 6th para & claim 1; since all poles enclosed by 63 are the same pole when 63 is provided w/ electric current), where n is larger than 2 (fig 8, at least n=6), and said winding loop 63 encloses a total magnetic flux being larger than the flux from one individual magnetic pole 61 (fig 8, since 63 encloses at least six poles, total flux will be larger than 5 poles), preferably being larger than the flux from two times the magnetic flux from one individual magnetic pole (fig 8, since 63 encloses at least six poles, total flux will be larger than 4 poles or 2 times flux of two poles), where said winding loop 63 length is shorter than 2*n*d, preferably shorter than n*d, where d is an airgap width distance (figs 8-9 & below, winding loop length in radial direction; n= at least 6; from figs coil length will be less than 6 times airgap width distance), where said airgap width distance being the average width of the magnetically active part of said airgaps taken in a direction parallel to said airgaps (figs 8-9 & below, radial direction) and perpendicular to said direction of rotation (figs 8-9 & below, radial direction perpendicular to circumferential direction), where said magnetic poles 61 are provided in at least one of said rotor and said stator (fig 8, stator).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses at least one of said winding loops 63, being a first winding loop, encloses magnetic flux from at least 5 magnetic poles 61 (fig 8, pg 5, 6th para, fig 8 shows 6 poles 61 surrounded by 63 but specification appears to disclose 8 poles 61-see pg 5, 6th para & claim 1) where at least 30%, preferably at least 50%, more preferably at least 70% even more preferably at least 90% and most preferably 100% of the flux from said at least 5 magnetic poles 61 are external to all other winding loops 63 belonging to another phase and located in the same said section 60 as said first winding loop 63 (fig 8, 100% of flux from one coil 63 of a 1st phase is external to the flux from one coil 63 of a 2nd or 3rd phase).
Re claim 5, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses said sections 50, 60 are flat discs (figs 8-9) and that the magnetic flux in said electrical machine is predominantly directed in the axial direction (figs 8-9).
Re claim 8, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose said electrical machine comprises ferrite magnets (Mita, [0180]).
Re claim 9, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose said electrical machine comprises neodymium magnets (Mita, [0180]).
Re claim 10, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose said electrical machine comprises permanent magnets arranged in a flux-concentrating setup (Mita, fig 2).
Re claim 13, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses at least one section 60 comprises winding loops being part of more than 2 different phases (pg 6, 1st paragraph, 3 phases), preferably more than 3 different phases, more preferably more than 4 different phases, even more preferably more than 5 different phases, even more preferably more than 6 different phases, even more preferably more than 9 different phases and most preferably more than 12 different phases (the term “preferably” indicates elements recited after this word are not required).
Re claim 14, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses at least one section comprises a winding loop belonging to one phase, but does not comprise winding loops belonging to other phases (as best understood by examiner at least one section comprises a winding loop belonging to one phase; figs 8-9, pg 3, 17th para, pg 4, 1st para & pg 6, 1st para; each section 60 has six winding loops 63; runs on three phase power so at least two loops 63 in each section are from one phase or two coils per phase; does not have winding loops of other phases at the locations of the two winding loops of one phase).
Re claim 16, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses a system comprising an electrical machine according to claim 1, said system being selected among:
a renewable energy conversion system,
a wind power plant,
a tidal power plant,
an ocean wave power plant,
an electric ship propulsion system,
a gearless motor (fig 9),
an electric vehicle (fig 9),
a direct drive system (fig 9), and
a force dense actuator.
Additionally since Pouillange in view of Mita disclose all the structural elements of claim 1, the electrical machine of Pouillange in view of Mita would be capable of being employed in the above systems.
Re claim 17, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses each of at least 3 different of said sections 60 comprises a winding loop 63 from the same said phase winding (figs 8-9, pg 3, 17th para, pg 4, 1st para & pg 6, 1st para; each section 60 has six sectors or loops 63; runs on three phase power so at least two loops 63 in each section are from one phase or two coils per phase).
Re claim 18, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 17 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses each of at least 2 different of said sections comprises a winding loop from the same said phase winding (figs 8-9, pg 3, 17th para, pg 4, 1st para & pg 6, 1st para; each section 60 has six sectors or coils 63; runs on three phase power so at least two coils 63 in each section are from one phase or two coils per phase).
Re claim 19, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses said winding loop 63 encloses a total magnetic flux that is larger than the magnetic flux from 2 individual magnetic poles of the same polarity (fig 9, since there are at least six poles 61 the total flux of the poles will be more than two poles 61; since all poles enclosed by 63 are the same pole when 63 is provided w/ electric current).
Re claim 20, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 3 as discussed above. Pouillange further discloses n is larger than 4 and preferably n is larger than 6 (figs 8-9 & above for claim 3, pg 5, 6th para, fig 8 shows 6 poles 61 surrounded by 63 but specification appears to disclose 8 poles 61-see pg 5, 6th para & claim 1; as can be seen in fig above for claim 3 the loop length will still be smaller if n is larger than 4 or 6).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouillange in view of Mita and in further view of Abe et al. (US20080036330, “Abe”).
Re claim 6, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above but are silent with respect to said electrical machine have a magnetic flux predominantly directed in the radial direction.
Abe discloses said electrical machine have a magnetic flux predominantly directed in the radial direction (fig 11, [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electrical machine of Pouillange in view of Mita to have a magnetic flux predominantly directed in the radial direction, as disclosed by Abe, in order to provide a machine with a smaller axial footprint, as demonstrated by Abe (smaller than figs 1 or 8 since rotor/stators of fig 11 nested in radial direction as opposed to axial direction of figs 1 & 8).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouillange in view of Mita and in further view of Fei et al. (US5831367, “Fei”).
Re claim 12, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose said electrical machine comprises electrical steel (Pouillange, pg 5, 1st & 5th -6th paragraphs; Mita, [0080]), but are silent with respect to said electrical machine comprises grain-oriented electrical steel.
Fei discloses grain-oriented electrical steel increases the permeability ratio to increase reluctance torque and reduce losses (col 6, lns 45-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electrical steel of Pouillange in view of Mita to be grain-oriented, as disclosed by Fei, in order to increase the permeability ratio to increase reluctance torque and reduce losses, as taught by Fei (col 6, lns 45-52).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouillange in view of Mita and in further view of Lam (GB2559441, “Lam”).
Re claim 15, Pouillange in view of Mita disclose claim 1 as discussed above but are silent with respect to said electrical machine has more than 3 phases, preferably more than 6 phases, more preferably more than 9 phases, even more preferably more than 12 phases and most preferably more than 15 phases.
Lam discloses the electrical machine has more than 3 phases, preferably more than 6 phases, more preferably more than 9 phases, even more preferably more than 12 phases and most preferably more than 15 phases (pg 23, lns 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known element (three phases as disclosed by Pouillange) for another known equivalent element (four or more phases as disclosed by Lam) resulting in the predictable result of powering the winding to rotate the rotor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
An obviousness double patenting rejection of claim 1 can be made by US12255509 (same inventor as the instant application) in view of Pouillange and Mita
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834