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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification and abstract were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant did not amend the specification or the abstract, therefore the objections remain.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1 and 5 were rejected as being anticipated by Kidd. Claims 2-4 were rejected as being obvious over Kidd in view of Tung Kong. Claims 6-7 were rejected as being obvious over Kidd in view of Whitfield. Claims 8-9 were rejected as being obvious over Kidd in view of Whitfield and Tung Kong. Claims 10-11 were rejected as being obvious over Kidd in view of Tu. The Applicant amended claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 7/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. 2014/0167545 to Bremner et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0053] the phrase “controller 136” should instead be “controller 134.”
In paragraph [0056] the phrase “third cylindrical cavity 802” should instead be “third cylindrical cavity 804.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0263597 to Kidd in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0167545 to Bremner et al. (hereinafter Bremner).
Regarding claim 1, Kidd teaches a magnetic cylinder gear system comprising:
an electric motor having at least a first rotatable drive shaft having a proximal end opposite to a distal end, said proximal end operatively connected to the electric motor (Paragraph [0029]; [0069]);
a first cylindrical body (FIG. 1, 12) defining a first cylindrical cavity (FIG. 6, 28), said first cylindrical body having a first cylindrical body longitudinal axis, said first cylindrical body comprising a first end wall opposite a second end wall (FIG. 1, 22), said distal end of the at least first rotatable drive shaft terminally and concentrically connected to the first end wall of the first cylindrical body (FIG. 1, 24; Paragraph [0069]);
at least a first rectangular magnet (FIG. 1, 16) concentrically disposed within the first cylindrical cavity of the first cylindrical body, said at least first rectangular magnet having a longitudinal axis in co-axial alignment with the first cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 9; 38, 40),
wherein said at least first rectangular magnet comprises a north polarity opposite a south polarity,
wherein said at least first rectangular magnet comprises a dividing line between said north polarity and said south polarity
wherein said dividing line of said first rectangular magnet is in co-axial alignment with the cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 9; 38, 40; Paragraph [0038]);
a second cylindrical body (FIG. 1, 13) defining a second cylindrical cavity (FIG. 6, 28), said second cylindrical body having a second cylindrical body longitudinal axis, said second cylindrical body comprising a first end wall opposite a second end wall (FIG. 1, 22), said second cylindrical body concentrically disposed between a first driven axle and a second driven axle (FIG. 1, 24), said first driven axle terminally and concentrically connected to the first end wall of the second cylindrical body, said second driven axle terminally and concentrically connected to the second end wall of the second cylindrical body (Paragraph [0069]);
at least a second rectangular magnet (FIG. 1, 16) concentrically disposed within the cylindrical cavity of the second cylindrical body, said at least second rectangular magnet having a longitudinal axis in co-axial alignment with the second cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 9; 38, 40),
wherein said at least second rectangular magnet comprises a north polarity opposite a south polarity,
wherein said at least second rectangular magnet comprises a dividing line between said north polarity and said south polarity,
wherein said dividing line of said second rectangular magnet is in co-axial alignment with the second cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 9; 38, 40; Paragraph [0038]);
the first cylindrical body being positioned closely adjacent the second cylindrical body such that in an initial position the north polarity of the at least first rectangular magnet imparts magnetic attraction to the south polarity of the at least second rectangular magnet and in a rotated position the south polarity of the at least first rectangular magnet imparts magnetic attraction to the north polarity of the at least second rectangular magnet (Paragraph [0029]) such that a rotation of the first cylindrical body in a clockwise direction imparts a corresponding counterclockwise rotation of the second cylindrical body (Paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
Kidd does not teach said at least first rectangular magnet having a longitudinal axis in co-axial alignment with the first cylindrical body longitudinal axis.
However, Bremner teaches a magnetic coupling with a first magnet (FIG. 18b, 8) having a longitudinal axis in co-axial alignment with the first cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 18b, 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic cylinder gear system of Kidd with the magnet placement of Bremner to result in a more compact magnetic gear form factor.
Regarding claim 5, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 1, wherein Kidd further teaches said first cylindrical body longitudinal axis being parallel to said second cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 2, 24).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd in view of Bremner and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0080227 to Tung Kong et al. (hereinafter Tung Kong).
Regarding claim 2, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 1.
Kidd in view of Bremner does not teach an electrical generator operatively connected to a first cylindrical body driven axle, said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller.
However, Tung Kong teaches a gear system comprising a cylindrical body (FIG. 5, 84) with a driven axle (FIG. 5, 85) operatively connected to an electrical generator (FIG. 5, 86), said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller (FIG. 5, 68) adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner with the generator of Tung Kong to convert the output of the motor back into electrical energy in a different form to suit a particular use.
Regarding claim 3, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 1.
Kidd in view of Bremner does not teach an electrical generator operatively connected to the first driven axle of the second cylindrical body, said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller.
However, Tung Kong teaches a gear system comprising a cylindrical body (FIG. 5, 84) with a driven axle (FIG. 5, 85) operatively connected to an electrical generator (FIG. 5, 86), said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller (FIG. 5, 68) adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner with the generator of Tung Kong to convert the output of the motor back into electrical energy in a different form to suit a particular use.
Regarding claim 4, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 1.
Kidd in view of Bremner does not teach an electrical generator operatively connected to the second driven axle of the second cylindrical body, said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller.
However, Tung Kong teaches a gear system comprising a cylindrical body (FIG. 5, 84) with a driven axle (FIG. 5, 85) operatively connected to an electrical generator (FIG. 5, 86), said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller (FIG. 5, 68) adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner with the generator of Tung Kong to convert the output of the motor back into electrical energy in a different form to suit a particular use.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd in view of Bremner and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0271970 to Whitfield et al. (hereinafter Whitfield).
Regarding claim 6, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system, wherein Kidd further teaches a cylindrical body (FIG. 1, 12) with a rectangular magnet (FIG. 1, 16),
said cylindrical body defining a cylindrical cavity (FIG. 6, 28), said cylindrical body having a cylindrical body longitudinal axis, said cylindrical body comprising a first end wall opposite a second end wall (FIG. 1, 22), said cylindrical body concentrically disposed between two driven axles (FIG. 1, 24),
said driven axle terminally and concentrically connected to the first and second end walls of the cylindrical body respectively (Paragraph [0069]),
said rectangular magnet concentrically disposed within the cylindrical cavity, said rectangular magnet having a longitudinal axis in co-axial alignment with the cylindrical body longitudinal axis (Fig. 9; 38, 40);
wherein said rectangular magnet comprises a north polarity opposite a south polarity,
wherein said rectangular magnet comprises a dividing line between said north polarity and said south polarity,
wherein said dividing line of said rectangular magnet is in co-axial alignment with the cylindrical body longitudinal axis.
Kidd in view of Bremner does not teach a third cylindrical body, the first cylindrical body being positioned closely adjacent the third cylindrical body such that in an initial position the north polarity of the at least first rectangular magnet imparts magnetic attraction to the south polarity of the at least third rectangular magnet and in a rotated position the south polarity of the at least first rectangular magnet imparts magnetic attraction to the north polarity of the at least third rectangular magnet, such that a rotation of the first cylindrical body in a clockwise direction imparts a corresponding counterclockwise rotation of the third cylindrical body.
However, Whitfield teaches a third cylindrical body (FIG. 13, 272) having a third rectangular magnet (FIG. 13, 276) in a third cylindrical cavity (Paragraph [0062]), a first cylindrical body (FIG. 15A, 291) being positioned closely adjacent the third cylindrical body (FIG. 15A, 296) such that in an initial position the north polarity of the at least first rectangular magnet imparts magnetic attraction to the south polarity of the at least third rectangular magnet and in a rotated position the south polarity of the at least first rectangular magnet imparts magnetic attraction to the north polarity of the at least third rectangular magnet (Paragraph [0066]), such that a rotation of the first cylindrical body in a clockwise direction (FIG. 15A, 297) imparts a corresponding counterclockwise rotation of the third cylindrical body (FIG. 15A, 299).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner with the third cylindrical body of Whitfield to increase and symmetrically balance the rotation output of the first cylindrical body of the magnetic gear system.
Regarding claim 7, Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 6, wherein Whitfield further teaches the third cylindrical body longitudinal axis being parallel to both of said first cylindrical body longitudinal axis and said second cylindrical body longitudinal axis (FIG. 15; 291, 295, 296).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield and in further view of Tung Kong.
Regarding claim 8, Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 7.
Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield does not teach an electrical generator operatively connected to the third driven axle of the third cylindrical body, said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller.
However, Tung Kong teaches a gear system comprising a cylindrical body (FIG. 5, 84) with a driven axle (FIG. 5, 85) operatively connected to an electrical generator (FIG. 5, 86), said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller (FIG. 5, 68) adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield with the generator of Tung Kong to convert the output of the motor back into electrical energy in a different form to suit a particular use.
Regarding claim 9, Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 7.
Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield does not teach an electrical generator operatively connected to the fourth driven axle of the third cylindrical body, said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller.
However, Tung Kong teaches a gear system comprising a cylindrical body (FIG. 5, 84) with a driven axle (FIG. 5, 85) operatively connected to an electrical generator (FIG. 5, 86), said electrical generator electrically connected to a controller (FIG. 5, 68) adapted to regulate a transmission of electricity through said controller (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner and Whitfield with the generator of Tung Kong to convert the output of the motor back into electrical energy in a different form to suit a particular use.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd in view of Bremner and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0234585 to Tu et al. (hereinafter Tu).
Regarding claim 10, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 1.
Kidd in view of Bremner does not teach the at least first rectangular magnet comprising a plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets, each rectangular magnet of said plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets being positioned in coplanar alignment.
However, Tu teaches a rectangular magnet comprising a plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets (FIG. 9B, 1-6), each rectangular magnet of the plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets being positioned in coplanar alignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner with the rectangular magnet composition of Tu as it is less expensive to form a larger magnet of smaller constituent magnets (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Kidd in view of Bremner teaches the magnetic gear system of claim 1.
Kidd in view of Bremner does not teach the at least second rectangular magnet comprising a plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets, each rectangular magnet of said plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets being positioned in coplanar alignment.
However, Tu teaches a rectangular magnet comprising a plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets (FIG. 9B, 1-6), each rectangular magnet of the plurality of coaxially aligned rectangular magnets being positioned in coplanar alignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic gear system of Kidd in view of Bremner with the rectangular magnet composition of Tu as it is less expensive to form a larger magnet of smaller constituent magnets (Paragraph [0010]).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834