DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 1.24.24. In view of this communication, claims 1-3 are now pending in this application.
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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claims 1-2 recite limitations “an area”, “the area” which is not shown in any of the drawings as to where area is being taken.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a base element assembled as a magnet” wherein underlined should be corrected to “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 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.
The term “low-speed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-speed” 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. Further claim uses term “Sadykov” which is not a well-known term and is also not clarified in Specification.
Further Claim 1 recites “windings” and further “generating windings” and further down “the coils”. It is not clear if they are different or same. To advance prosecution, Examiner interprets all to be the same.
Further Claim 1 recites “an area of projecting toothed ends of the magnetic core of the coils”. It is not clear looking at the drawing or specification what is meant by “ends”. To advance prosecution Examiner is interpreting the projected area of the entire tooth end.
Further Claim 2 recites “the protruding toothed ends of each of the coils” where as claim 1 recites “projecting toothed ends of the magnetic core of the coils”. It is not clear if Applicant intends both to be same. To advance prosecution and based on drawing Fig 1 and Fig 2, Examiner interprets “the protruding toothed ends of each of the coils” in Claim 2 same as “projecting toothed ends of the magnetic core of the coils” in Claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al (CN203734393U English translation), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding Claim 1, Xu discloses (Figs 1-2) a Sadykov low-speed electric generator [Para 0089] comprising:
a stationary magnetic core (7)[Abstract discloses iron core], being a stator;
a movable toothed magnetic core (4) [Abstract discloses iron core], being a rotor;
a magnet (5); and
windings (6);
characterized in that
the stationary magnetic core comprises a base element (5) assembled as the magnet and one or two generating windings(6-1 to 6-8) arranged on the magnetic core (Fig 2);
ends (7Te) of the magnetic core (7) in the generating windings (6) has a toothed separation (Fig 2) at a point of magnetic interaction (Fig 2 discloses airgap between rotor 4 and stator tooth end 7Te which is where flux crosses over) between the stator and the toothed rotor;
a pitch of teeth of the rotor and of the ends of the magnetic core with coils of the stator is the same [Abstract discloses “ the stator small teeth and the rotor small teeth are the same in teeth pitch”]; and
an area (A1) of projecting toothed ends (7Te) of the magnetic core (7) of the coils (6) is greater than or equal to an area (A2) of the magnetic core (7) inside the coils.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
556
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Xu discloses the Sadykov low-speed electric generator of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the movable toothed rotor (4) is configured to enter into magnetic interaction with a plurality of base elements (5-1,5-2) assembled in as the magnet (5-1,5-2) and the coils (6-1 to 6-8) arranged on said magnetic core (7).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Bayaliev (WO2021025547A1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Xu discloses the Sadykov low-speed electric generator of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the base element (5) assembled as the magnet (5) has a continuous non-toothed end (5 does not have tooth) but does not explicitly disclose that it closes a magnetic flux between the toothed rotor and the stator, providing a constant interaction area equal to or greater than the area of the protruding toothed ends of each of the coils.
Bayaliev discloses (Fig 5a) magnet end (10e) closes a magnetic flux (Fl) between the toothed (To) rotor(12)[0030 discloses “protrusions”] and the stator (14) , providing a constant interaction area equal to or greater than the area of the protruding toothed ends of each of the coils (10e area is greater than 8e area. See 35 U.S.C.112(b) rejection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric generator of Xu with Bayaliev’s magnet interaction area with toothed rotor being greater than stator magnetic core interaction area with toothed rotor in order to ensure minimized resistance to magnetic flux as flux flows in both directions as shown by annotated “Fl” in Bayaliev.
PNG
media_image3.png
202
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights