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
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 6 , 10-11, 13 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the armature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ferrofluid seals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation in claim 11, lines 1-2 of “wherein each coil has…” renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear what each coil is referring to (i.e. coil of the inductor or the armature).
The recitation in claim 13, line 1-2 of “comprising two opposite faces axially offset with respect to one another” renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear what the opposite faces are part of (i.e. which component comprises the two opposite faces).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3093599 in view of DE 19847591.
599 teaches a superconducting electric machine (fig. 1) comprises a superconducting coil (6) configured to generate a magnetic field and superconducting bulks (7) distributed circumferentially around an axis of the electric machine (fig. 1, #6, 7; para. 0039).
599 fails to teach a flux barrier comprising a superconducting material being centered on the axis of rotation and extending radially inward of the pellets.
591, however, teaches an electronic device (para. 0001) comprising a flux barrier comprising a superconducting material (4) being centered on the axis of rotation and extending radially inside the superconducting bulks (2, 7) (para. 0006, 0008; fig. 3d, #2, 7, 4) for the purpose of improving the power density (preventing leakage of flux; para. 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flux barrier comprising a superconducting material (4) being centered on the axis of rotation and extending radially inside the superconducting bulks (2, 7) in 599 in order to improve the power density as taught by 591.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9; 591 teaches the drive shaft (3a) passes through the flux barrier (4) mounted around the shaft (para. 0006, 0008; fig. 3d, #2, 7, 4).
Regarding claim 7-8, 599 teaches an armature comprising coils circumferentially distributed around the axis (para. 0039). Additionally it would have been obvious to provide the armature and flux barrier (claim 7), or the barrier and the pellets (claim 8), moving as a single part as integration of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B).
Regarding claim 12, 559 teaches an aircraft comprising an electric machine (para. 0002).
Regarding claim 13, 599 teaches the machine comprises two opposite faces with respect to one another (fig. 1, #8; para. 0039).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3093599 in view of DE 19847591 and Zhang (“Melt-growth bulk superconductors and application to an axial-gap-type rotating machine).
599 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach an assembly for cooling one of the superconducting pellets such that the flux barrier is mounted around at least one of the cooling assembly.
Zhang, however, teaches an electric machine (abstract) wherein a cooling assembly is provided for cooling superconductor parts within an electric machine (including bulk HTS magnets) (fig. 7 and associated text; page 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cooling assembly in 599 in order to cool superconductor parts within an electric machine (including bulk HTS magnets) as taught by Zhang. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the flux barrier mounted around the cooling assembly in order to provide for cooling in the absence of unexpected results and because rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 3673444) in view of Buhrer (WO 2016/029918) and DE 19847591.
Kawabe teaches an electric device (col. 1, lines 1-15) comprising an inductor comprising a coil to generate a magnetic field coil (fig. 3b, #71; col. 5, lines 15-35), and superconducting pellets circumferentially distributed around an axis of the machine (fig. 3b, #33, 35, 43, 45).
Kawabe fails to teach that the inductor coil is a superconductor.
Buhrer, however, teaches a rotary machine (para. 0001) wherein the inductor coil is a superconductor for the purpose increasing torque density (para. 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inductor coil as a superconductor in Kawabe in order to increase torque density as taught by Buhrer.
Kawabe fails to teach a flux barrier comprising a superconducting material being centered on the axis of rotation and extending radially inward of the pellets.
591, however, teaches an electronic device (para. 0001) comprising a flux barrier comprising a superconducting material (4) being centered on the axis of rotation and extending radially inside the superconducting bulks (2, 7) (para. 0006, 0008; fig. 3d, #2, 7, 4) for the purpose of improving the power density (preventing leakage of flux; para. 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flux barrier comprising a superconducting material (4) being centered on the axis of rotation and extending radially inside the superconducting bulks (2, 7) in Kawabe in order to improve the power density as taught by 591.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9; 591 teaches the drive shaft (3a) passes through the flux barrier (4) mounted around the shaft (para. 0006, 0008; fig. 3d, #2, 7, 4).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to provide the barrier moving with the pellets (claim 8) as a single part as integration of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B).
Regarding claim 9; 591 teaches the drive shaft (3a) passes through the flux barrier (4) mounted around the shaft (para. 0006, 0008; fig. 3d, #2, 7, 4).
Regarding claim 13, Kawabe teaches two opposite faces axially offset with respect to one another (opposite sides of 32 and 42 in fig. 3b).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 3673444) in view of Buhrer (WO 2016/029918) and DE 19847591 and Zhang (“Melt-growth bulk superconductors and application to an axial-gap-type rotating machine).
Kawabe teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach an assembly for cooling one of the superconducting pellets such that the flux barrier is mounted around at least one of the cooling assembly.
Zhang, however, teaches an electric machine (abstract) wherein a cooling assembly is provided for cooling superconductor parts within an electric machine (including bulk HTS magnets) (fig. 7 and associated text; page 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cooling assembly in Kawabe in order to cool superconductor parts within an electric machine (including bulk HTS magnets) as taught by Zhang. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the flux barrier mounted around the cooling assembly in order to provide for cooling in the absence of unexpected results and because rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 3673444) in view of Buhrer (WO 2016/029918) and DE 19847591 and Torrey (US 2020/0350805).
Kawabe teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the device comprising an armature comprising coils distributed around the axis.
Torrey, however, teaches an electric machine (abstract) comprising an armature winding of coils for the purpose of providing a superconductor generator (abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an armature winding of coils in Kawabe in order to provide a known configuration for a superconductor generator as taught by Torrey.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to provide the armature and flux barrier (claim 7) moving as a single part as integration of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 3673444) in view of Buhrer (WO 2016/029918) and DE 19847591 and Laskaris (US 2007/0120435).
Kawabe teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach an aircraft comprising an electric machine.
Laskaris, however, teaches a superconductor generator wherein the generator is part of an aircraft (para. 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the generator as part of an aircraft in Kawabe in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Laskaris.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the flux barrier extending between the pellets and the armature such as to partially cover the radially inner edge of at least part of the coils of the armature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights