–DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14-29 of U.S. Application No. 18282947 filed on 03/07/2024 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The term “close to” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite and thus rejected. The term “close to” 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. It is not clear how close is close? What is the distance that if surpassed, the compensation coils are no longer close?
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 14- 23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. (JP 2011-085223; Hereinafter, “Takemoto”) in view of Chiba et al. (US 20100231076; Hereinafter, “Chiba”).
Regarding claim 14: Takemoto discloses a device (magnetic bearing; title) for supporting a shaft (8; fig. 7); the device comprising:
a magnet (7; rotor 7 of magnetic material; para [0020]) connected to the shaft (8);
a stator having a first yoke (4) and a second yoke (2), both of which are composed of a soft- magnetic material (evidenced by its ability to conduct magnetic flux, represented by arrows in at least fig. 7);
a first actuator coil (5) arranged on the first yoke (4); and two or more second actuator coils (1 which comprises 4 coils seen in fig. 2) arranged on the second yoke (2), wherein the first yoke (4) has an opening into which the shaft (8, and the magnet ring 7) is inserted (fig. 7) so that an axial air gap (annotated fig. 7 below) is formed between the first yoke (4, in particular portion 4d) and an end face of the shaft (portion 7 of the shaft), or an element connected thereto, wherein the first yoke (4) is shaped such that a radial air gap (annotated fig. 7 below) is formed between the first yoke (4b) and a circumferential surface of the shaft (7, 8), wherein the second yoke (2) is arranged such that a further radial air gap radial air gap (annotated fig. 7 below) is formed between the circumferential surface of the shaft (7,8) and the second yoke (2), wherein the magnet (7) is positioned relative to the first yoke (4) and the second yoke (2)
PNG
media_image1.png
657
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takemoto does not specifically disclose that the magnet (7) is permanent magnet such that the permanent magnet generates a magnetic bias flux in both the axial air gap and the further radial air gap.
Chiba discloses the magnet (81, 83) is permanent magnet (para [113]).
Forming the magnet 7 of Takemoto with a permanent magnet material (simply by forming magnet 7 of permanent magnet rings of alternating polarity as seen in fig. 4 of Takemoto) would allow for the permanent magnet to generate a magnetic bias flux in both the axial air gap and the further radial air gap which provides a boost to the flux in the magnetic bearing device which increase the stabilization of the shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the magnet of Takemoto of permanent magnet material such that the permanent magnet generates a magnetic bias flux in both the axial air gap and the further radial air gap as disclosed by Chiba to provide a boost to the flux in the magnetic bearing device which increases the stabilization of the shaft.
Regarding 15/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto further discloses that the first yoke (4) and the second yoke (2) are spaced apart in an axial direction by a distance (fig. 7).
Regarding 16/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto further discloses that the first yoke (4) and the second yoke (2) are connected to each other (via magnets 3; fig. 7).
Regarding 17/16/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 16 and Takemoto further discloses that the first yoke (4) and the second yoke (2) are connected to each other via webs (the webs formed by poles 2a and 2b in fig. 2).
Regarding 18/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that one end of the shaft is inserted into the first yoke (4) and the axial air gap is formed between an end face (the axial end face of the shaft as seen in fig. 7) at the end of the shaft or of an element (7) connected to the shaft and the first yoke (4d).
Regarding 19/18/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 18 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that the element (7) connected to the shaft is a permanent magnet (as discussed in claim 14).
Regarding 20/18/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 18 and Takemoto further discloses that the element (7) connected to the shaft (8) is a flux guide element (as it is made of magnetic material; para [0020]).
Regarding 21/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto further discloses that the shaft (7, 8) extends through the first yoke (4) and the axial air gap (see annotated fig. 7 above) is formed between an end face of a shaft shoulder, or an element (7) connected to the shaft (8), and the first yoke (at 4d).
Regarding 22/21/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 21 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that the element (7) connected to the shaft is a permanent magnet (as discussed in claim 14).
Regarding 23/21/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 21 and Takemoto further discloses that the element (7) connected to the shaft (8) is a flux guide element (as it is made of magnetic material; para [0020]).
Regarding 25/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that the permanent magnet (7) extends around a circumference of the shaft (8).
Regarding 26/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that the permanent magnet (7) extends in the axial direction between the first yoke and the second yoke (the magnet 7 extends along the distance between the first and second yoke).
Regarding 27/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that the first actuator coil (thrust winding 5) is configured to generate, upon energization of the first actuator coil, a magnetic flux in the axial air gap (para [0019]) and which is superimposed on the magnetic bias flux in the axial air gap (para [0049]).
Regarding 28/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Takemoto as modified further discloses that the two or more second actuator coils (radial electromagnet 1) are configured to generate, upon energization of the two or more second actuator coils, a magnetic flux in the further radial air gap and which is superimposed on the magnetic bias flux in the further radial air gap (para [0015]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto in view of Chiba and in further view of Brakensiek et al. (US 2017/0298985; Hereinafter, “Brakensiek”).
Regarding claim 24/14: Takemoto in view of Chiba disclose the limitations of claim 14 but does not disclose that the permanent magnet is arranged in a central opening of the shaft and is magnetized in the axial direction.
Brakensiek discloses permanent magnet (208; fig. 4, 6) is arranged in a central opening of the shaft (200) and is magnetized in the axial direction (fig. 4, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have arranged the magnet of Takemoto in view of Ciba in a central opening of the shaft and is magnetized in the axial direction as taught by Brakensiek since such arrangement allows for high speeds and ensures a high degree of radial and axial rigidity (para [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 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.
Claim 29 recites, “…one or more compensation coils arranged close to the second yoke and configured to reduce the magnetic leakage flux of the first actuator coil in the radial air gap when energized”, such limitations, in combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior arts in record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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, 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834