Detailed Action begins on Page 3
Table of Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 3
Claims 1-20 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-12 7
Claim 9 11
Claim 18 12
Citation of Relevant Art 13
Conclusion 15
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20
Claim 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “selected so as to substantially determine” and “substantially determine” is not defined such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to identify the scope of the claim or the boundaries of what would and would not constitute infringement. The term “substantially” as used in this limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite because it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “wherein said angle Φ and said phase shift are selected so as to substantially determine the value of a maximum mechanical torque that can be transferred in the magnetic gear without slippage occurring between the second wheel and the first and third wheels.” When claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See MPEP 2173.05(g). When a claim limitation employs functional language, the examiner’s determination of whether the limitation is sufficiently definite will be highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art). Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Claim 1 recites a functional limitation for the angle Φ and the phase shift, but this functional limitation is simply the result achieved without sufficient supporting limitations to achieve this results and thus the claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring only the structure preceding this rejected limitation.
Regarding Claims 2-20, they depend from claim 1 and are rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 2, it recites the limitation “more than twice a corresponding maximum mechanical torque that can be transferred by another magnetic gear including only the first wheel and the second wheel” and as currently written it is unclear how any torque can be transferred by this another magnetic gear because it only includes the wheels and nothing else. It excludes any element for driving either of the wheels by stating “including only” and therefore it appears claim 2 is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. For purposes of examination claim 2 will be interpreted without “including only the first wheel and the second wheel”.
Regarding Claim 3, it recites the limitation “said angle Φ (N)” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites the limitation “two specific teeth respectively belonging to these first and third magnetic toothings” and it is not clearly defined if the “two specific teeth” requires two specific teeth on the first magnetic toothings and two specific two on the second magnetic toothing (for a total of four in the mechanism), or if it just requires two specific teeth between the first and third magnetic toothings (for a total of two in the mechanism) and if this is the case if the specific teeth can both exclusively on the first or third magnetic toothing or requires one on each.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites the limitation “Ψ(M)” (in the mathematical relationship) and this limitation is not defined in the claim and lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7, it recites the limitations “respectively of the third toothing”, “respectively the second magnetic fluxes”, and “respectively of the third wheel” and in each instance it is not clear how to interpret them requiring any limitations in combination with the rest of the claim. For purposes of examination claim 7 will be interpreted such that these limitations are not included because as currently written they appear to not actually claim anything in the context of the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites the limitation “which are thus drive wheels in the magnetic gear” and it is not clear if the drive wheels in this limitation are the same or different from those introduced in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites the limitations “respectively the third toothing”, “respectively its second permanent magnetic poles”, “respectively with as many complementary magnetic poles”, and “respectively of the third magnetic toothing” and in each instance it is not clear how to interpret them requiring any limitations in combination with the rest of the claim. For purposes of examination claim 14 will be interpreted such that these limitations are not included because as currently written they appear to not actually claim anything in the context of the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites the limitations “on the periphery whereof its said first permanent magnetic poles” and it is not clearly defined what element/limitation is being referred to by “whereof’ and “its”.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites the limitations “and which is made” and it is not clearly defined whether the rim or the second wheel is referred to by “which”.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites the limitation “at least for the most part” and this limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least for the most part” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites the limitations “arranged relative to this wheel”, “and resulting from the magnetic coupling of this wheel with the second magnetic toothing of the second wheel”, and “as a function of the angular position of this wheel relative to the reference half-axis starting from the rotational axis of the second wheel and intercepting the rotational axis of this wheel” and it is not clearly defined what element/limitation is being referred to with “this wheel” in each of the four instances.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites the limitations “relative to the reference half-axis” and it is not particularly defined which previously introduced element is referred to with the reference half-axis because there are two previously introduced.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites the limitations “the wheel concerned” and it is not clearly defined what element/limitation is specifically referred to by “the wheel concerned”.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites the limitation “in particular a wristwatch” and the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 19, it recites the limitation “in particular a wristwatch” and the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 20, it recites the limitation “in particular a wristwatch” and the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 7-8, and 10-12
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand (US 3523204 A) in view of Tajima et al. (JP 2019117682 A, hereinafter “Tajima”).
Regarding Claim 1, Rand discloses a mechanism, comprising a magnetic gear including a first wheel (95a) and a second wheel (22f), the first wheel being provided with first permanent magnetic poles (96) which are arranged so as to form the magnetised teeth of a first magnetic toothing [fig. 13] from which first magnetic fluxes having alternating polarities respectively emerge [fig. 13] [col. 4 lines 51-73], the first wheel and the second wheel being arranged such that the first magnetic toothing has a first magnetic coupling with the second magnetic toothing generated by said first magnetic fluxes which momentarily polarise, in magnetic attraction, teeth of the second magnetic toothing, which are momentarily located in a first magnetic coupling zone with the first magnetic toothing and thus through which first magnetic fluxes from among said first magnetic fluxes respectively flow, such that the first and second wheels magnetically mesh with one another [fig. 13] [col. 4 lines 51-73], the magnetic gear defining a first reference half-axis starting from the rotational axis of the second wheel and intercepting the rotational axis of the first wheel [fig. 13];wherein the magnetic gear further comprises a third wheel (95b) provided with second permanent magnetic poles (96) which are arranged so as to form the magnetised teeth of a third magnetic toothing from which second magnetic fluxes with alternating polarities respectively emerge [fig. 13], the third wheel and the second wheel being arranged such that the third magnetic toothing has a second magnetic coupling with the second magnetic toothing generated by said second magnetic fluxes which momentarily polarise, in magnetic attraction, teeth of the second magnetic toothing, which are momentarily located in a second magnetic coupling zone with the third magnetic toothing and thus through which second magnetic fluxes from among said second magnetic fluxes respectively flow, such that the second and third wheels magnetically mesh with one another [fig. 13] [col. 4 lines 51-73], the magnetic gear defining a second reference half-axis starting from the rotational axis of the second wheel and intercepting the rotational axis of the third wheel [fig. 13], the first reference half-axis and the second reference half-axis having a given angle Φ therebetween (not shown directly, but necessary where there are the two half-axes);wherein the first permanent magnetic poles of the first wheel have a first phase relative to the first reference half-axis [fig. 13], and the second permanent magnetic poles of the third wheel have a second phase relative to the second reference half-axis [fig. 13], the magnetic gear being arranged such that a phase shift between the first and third wheels, defined as the difference between said first and second phases, is constant at all times [fig. 13] (driven together and with the same gear ratios, therefore constant).
Rand does not disclose that the second wheel being provided with teeth made of a soft ferromagnetic material defining a second magnetic toothing.
Yajima discloses using a soft ferromagnetic material for a driven gear when the corresponding driving gear includes a permanent magnet for the benefit or reducing the deterioration of the bearing of the driven wheel encountered when permanent magnets are used on both the driving and driven wheels [0055]. Additionally Yajima teaches that by using a soft ferromagnet material in place of additional permanent magnets the cost of the invention can be reduced [0055].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the soft ferromagnetic material taught by Yajima for the magnetic teeth in place of the permanent magnets disclosed by Rand for the second wheel in order to reduce the wear on the bearing of the second wheel and reduce the cost of the invention while maintaining the magnetic gear interaction as taught by Yajima.
With respect to the preamble of claim 1: the preamble of the claim has not been given any patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Pitney Bowes Inc, v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Rowe v. Dror. 112F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) and MPEP 2111.02. In this case, none of the limitations following the preamble require the structure to be found in a timepiece mechanism.
Regarding Claim 2, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 1, and further disclose wherein the angle Φ and the difference between said first and second phase shifts are selected such that said maximum mechanical torque that can be transferred without slippage is more than twice a corresponding maximum mechanical torque that can be transferred by another magnetic gear because the invention produced from the combination of Rand and Yajima will be double the maximum mechanical torque than some arbitrary magnetic gear in the world.
Regarding Claim 7, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 1, and Rand further discloses wherein the magnetised teeth of the first toothing are arranged such that the first magnetic fluxes emerge from these magnetised teeth in a main direction which is radial relative to the rotational axis of the first wheel [fig. 13].
Regarding Claim 8, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 1, and Rand further discloses wherein the first and third wheels are drive wheels and the second wheel is driven [fig. 13] [col. 4 lines 51-73].
Regarding Claim 10, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 8, and Rand further discloses wherein the first and third wheels are mechanically coupled [fig. 13]; and wherein the mechanism further includes one motor (26), the rotor whereof is kinematically connected to the first and third wheels [fig. 13], in order to be able to drive these first and third wheels such that they rotate [col. 4 lines 51-73].
Regarding Claim 11, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 10, and Rand further discloses wherein a gear train (12, 91a, 91b) mechanically couples the first and third wheels, the rotor driving this gear train and the first and third wheels such that they rotate [fig. 13].
Regarding Claim 12, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 1, and Rand further discloses wherein the first and third wheels are disposed substantially on either side of the second wheel [col. 4 lines 51-73], the second wheel thus being arranged substantially between the first and third wheels [fig. 13] [col. 4 lines 51-73].
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand and Yajima as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of McVicar (US 20040000829 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 8 but do not disclose the mechanism further comprising two motors, the respective rotors of the two motors each being kinematically connected to a different wheel from among the first and third wheels, in order to drive these first and third wheels such that they rotate, which are thus drive wheels in the magnetic gear; and wherein the two motors are configured to be able to drive the first and third wheels at least in part simultaneously.
McVicar disclose a gear transmission apparatus with two driving wheels (46, 48) applying a driving torque to a driven wheel (50) with a first and second motor (42, 44) connected to the first and second driving wheels, respectively, and which have different phases to one another but rotate with the same velocity to drive the first and third wheels at least in part simultaneously [0028].
The prior art of Rand and Yajima contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a single motor and gear train connecting to the first and third wheel with two motors, each connected to respective wheel of the first and third wheel but achieving the same function. As shown by McVicar, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable because the choice is a simple one, single motor versus two motors, easily achievable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and just alternative ways for achieving the same torque supplying result.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand and Yajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Domenico et al. (CH 709059 A2, hereinafter “Di Domenico”).
Regarding Claim 18, Rand and Yajima disclose the mechanism according to claim 1, however neither disclose that the mechanism is provided in a timepiece.
Di Domenico discloses a timepiece [0002] that includes a mechanism comprising at least a first component and a second component which are arranged to cooperate with each other in a relative movement along a path at an interface zone. wherein a first track of said first component comprises first actuating means which are arranged to exert a contactless force on second complementary actuating means which comprises a second track belonging to said second component [0001].
The function of this timepiece mechanism being nearly identical to the invention of Rand and Yajima, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the invention of Rand and Yajima in the same or substantially similar timepiece function like that described by Di Domenico as another use of the disclosed invention, structurally and functionally.
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hosaka et al. (JP 2020148323 A) discloses a drive transmission device comprising a pair of gears 2A, B at a driving source side, and a common output-side gear 3 engaged with both of the pair of gears have such gear engagement that the pair of gears receive thrust force from the output-side gear. The pair of gears are supported movably in the axial direction, and elastic bodies 5A, B are disposed between members 21A, B for restricting the axial movement and the pair of gears, at axial sides different from each other in the pair of gears.
Lewis (US 20200076289 A1) discloses a magnetic coupling apparatus, for transmitting drive from a driving member to a driven member, wherein the driving member has at least one first magnet and the driven member has a plurality of second magnets, and wherein the driving member and the driven member are arranged so that, as the driving member rotates, the at least one first magnet approaches one of the second magnets and thus exerts a force upon it which causes the driven member to rotate.
Hashizume et al. (WO 2007037257 A1) discloses an on-contact rotary transmission device capable of properly transmitting rotations including those in a low rotational speed range without relying upon eddy current by improving the structure and arrangement of permanent magnets. Planetary rotors (110) to (140) are disposed along the outer periphery of a center rotor (60). The center rotor (60) comprises a rotor body (60a) and the permanent magnets (60b) to (60i) installed at intervals along the outer peripheral wall of the rotor body (60a). Each of the planetary rotors (110) to (140) comprises a rotor body and the permanent magnets installed at intervals along the outer peripheral wall of the rotor body. The permanent magnets of each of the planetary rotors (110) to (140) are positioned so as to be magnetically attracted to either of the permanent magnets of the center rotor (60) in such a manner that they face each other through a predetermined clearance. A timing belt is wrapped around each of both planetary rotors (110, 120), (130, 140), and (140, 110).
Harano (JP 2005253292 A) discloses a mechanism in which permanent magnet (or electromagnet) is disposed on the side faces of paired gears made of the steel material having high magnetic permeability so that N-poles (or S-poles) are opposed to each other. High magnetic repulsive force is generated between engagement tooth surfaces, and a reduction in a contact surface pressure or a non-contact state is obtained at the torque transmission time. The torque transmission rate is improved by arcuately forming a gear form.
Aoshima (US 6559569 B2) discloses a motor device including a pair of motor units and a driven member meshed with rotary gears of the pair of motor units to drive the driven member, the motor units each including a rotary magnet that is cylindrical and magnetized so as to have different magnetic poles in turn along the circumferential direction, a rotary gear having a plurality of teeth, the rotary gear rotating about the rotation axis of the rotary magnet together with the rotary magnet, and a stator member having a plurality of outer magnetic poles that are arranged on the outer periphery of the rotary magnet and a plurality of inner magnetic poles that are arranged on the inner periphery of the rotary magnet and are opposed to the outer magnetic poles, the plural outer magnetic poles and the plural inner magnetic poles being excited by a coil.
Fujiwara et al. (JP 2000291779 A) discloses a friction-proof gear capable of reducing the loss of the motive power and the abrasion of tooth surfaces by providing the gears contacted with each other for transmitting the power, with the magnetic property of the same polarity.
Faus (US 2243555 A) discloses magnetic gearing whereby rotary motion between shafts may be transmitted without friction or mechanical contact and at any desired speed ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2844