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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the examiner being incorrect one radial levitating forces (from however many teeth the windings are on) being required, this is not found persuasive as the orientation of the windings being wound around the stator so as to surround the rotor implies that a radial levitating force (since Mori discloses a motor and the rotor has permanent magnets) from the stator is imparted onto the rotor (since the bearings are foil bearings). This radial levitating force is repelled by the magnetic force from the magnets on the rotor which then causes the rotor to turn (torque is then generated). No discussion from the inventor is required. However, the examiner is open to an interview should Applicant want to discuss anything regarding the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Mori failing to teach a controller that produces a radial force, this too is not found persuasive for the radial force is produced by the stator core and windings which is controlled by some sort of switching (this is inherent to motors produced by 2013 and the examiner would like to take official notice to state that controllers are used in motors to produce the radial force applied by the stator and this is widely known….still further, the bearings are foil bearings).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to amendments filed 6/6/2025.
However, a new rejection is being made on claim 6. Regarding said claim, it is unclear as to how “during the second interval redistributes at least some of electrical energy used to produce the radial force into a torque force”. As such, the limitations will be construed as being taught by the prior art. Claim 15 has similar limitations and will be handled in the same manner as claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Mori et al. (US 20200166039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8-12, 16 &17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mori et al..
1. Mori et al. teach:
An electric motor apparatus comprising:
an electric motor M having a stator 5 and a rotor 35 rotatable on a shaft 33about an axis with respect to the stator (fig 1), the electric motor including a winding set (fig 1) producing a magnetic field applying a force (inherent since this is a radial airgap motor, MPEP 2112) between the rotor and stator;
at least one bearing 9 & 11 supporting the shaft for rotation (fig 1); and
a motor drive (also inherent since electric motors are controlled by a controller of some kind, MPEP 2112) controlling the winding set of the electric motor to apply a radial force (inherent since this is a radial airgap motor, MPEP 2112) to the rotor independent of torque force (inherent since the torque component comes after the radial force, MPEP 2112) and independent of a contemporaneous measurement of radial rotor displacement (there are no sensors in this turbomachine) with respect to the stator.
2. Mori et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 wherein the radial force is vertical (see fig 1).
3. Mori et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 wherein the radial force is substantially constant for a full revolution of the rotor (the length of time that the torque is lasting which is dependent of the length of time the current is being applied to the coils is a functional recitation that does not impart any structure that would distinguish applicant’s claimed invention over that of the prior art…As such Mori et al. inherently disclosed controller is capable of holding the force for a complete revolution of the rotor, fig 1 & MPEP 2112).
7. Mori et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 wherein the electric motor is a two-pole motor adapted to provide a power of at least 200 kW (the amount of power that is produced by a motor is a time dependent function of the motor that does not impart any structure that would distinguish applicant’s claimed invention over that of the prior art…that being acknowledged Mori discloses the limitations of claim 7 inherently, MPEP 2112).
8. Mori et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 further including a compressor fan 3 attached to the rotor shaft.
9. Mori et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 wherein the bearing is one or more magnetic bearings together providing a maximum levitation component (“providing a maximum levitation…” appears to be a functional recitation that does not impart any structure that would distinguish applicant’s claimed invention over that of the prior art…Still further, Mori et al. motor discloses the structural limitations that applicant has claimed…As such the limitations at question are being construed as inherently disclosed by Mori et al., MPEP 2112) less than a weight of the rotor and shaft.
10. Mori et al. teach:
A method of operating an electric motor M having a stator 5 and a rotor 35 rotatable on a shaft 33 about an axis with respect to the stator (fig 1), the electric motor including a winding set (fig 1) producing a magnetic field applying a force (inherent since this is a radial airgap motor, MPEP 2112) between the rotor and stator and providing at least one bearing 9 & 11 supporting the shaft for rotation;
the method comprising:
controlling electrical power to the winding set to apply a radial force (inherent since this is a radial airgap motor, MPEP 2112) to the rotor independent of torque force (inherent since the torque component comes after the radial force, MPEP 2112) and independent of a contemporaneous measure radial rotor displacement (there are no sensors in this turbomachine) with respect to the stator.
11. Mori et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 wherein the radial force is vertical.
12. Mori et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 wherein a magnitude of the radial force is substantially constant for a full revolution of the rotor (the length of time that the torque is lasting which is dependent of the length of time the current is being applied to the coils is a functional recitation that does not impart any structure that would distinguish applicant’s claimed invention over that of the prior art…As such Mori et al. controller in conjunction with the BEM is capable of holding the force for a complete revolution of the rotor, fig 1 & MPEP 2112).
16. Mori et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 wherein the electric motor is a two-pole motor adapted to provide a power of at least 200 kW (the amount of power that is produced by a motor is a time dependent function of the motor that does not impart any structure that would distinguish applicant’s claimed invention over that of the prior art…that being acknowledged Mori discloses the limitations of claim 7 inherently, MPEP 2112).
17. Mori et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 further including a compressor fan 3 attached to the rotor shaft.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. in view of Heshmat et al. (US 6965181).
4. Mori et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the motor drive applies the radial force to the rotor during a first interval determined with respect to a rotational speed of the rotor being below a predetermined speed threshold required to establish a pressurized gas layer for levitation and removes the radial force to the rotor during a second interval determined with respect to the rotor speed of the rotor being above the predetermined speed threshold.
Heshmat et al. teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing (foil bearing fig 14A) and the motor drive applies the radial force (or liftoff force see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) to the rotor during a first interval determined with respect to a rotational speed of the rotor being below a predetermined speed threshold required to establish a pressurized gas layer (the gas layer cannot be established until liftoff speed is achieved, see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) for levitation and removes the radial force to the rotor during a second interval (the magnetic force decreases once liftoff speed is achieved, see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) determined with respect to the rotor speed of the rotor being above the predetermined speed threshold (the speed of the rotor is higher than liftoff speed as indicated by the decrease in magnetic force in the bearing, see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) so as to share the load of balancing the shaft which prolongs the service life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Mori et al. so that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the motor drive applies the radial force to the rotor during a first interval determined with respect to a rotational speed of the rotor being below a predetermined speed threshold required to establish a pressurized gas layer for levitation and removes the radial force to the rotor during a second interval determined with respect to the rotor speed of the rotor being above the predetermined speed threshold, as taught by Heshmat et al. so as to prolong the service life of the motor.
5. Mori et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the predetermined speed threshold is a speed necessary to develop a gas film in the gas bearing supporting the rotor without the sliding contact of bearing components.
Heshmat et al. teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the predetermined speed threshold is a speed necessary to develop a gas film in the gas bearing supporting the rotor without the sliding contact of bearing components (or liftoff force see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) so as to share the load of balancing the shaft which prolongs the service life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Mori et al. so that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the predetermined speed threshold is a speed necessary to develop a gas film in the gas bearing supporting the rotor without the sliding contact of bearing components, as taught by Heshmat et al. so as to prolong the service life of the motor.
6. Mori et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 4 wherein the electric motor is a combined winding motor and wherein the motor drive provides the radial force to the rotor during the first interval and during the second interval redistributes at least some of electrical energy used to produce the radial force into a torque force (This appears to be a functional recitation that does not offer any structure that would distinguish the claimed invention over that of the prior art…as such the limitations at question are being construed as being inherently disclosed by Mori et al., MPEP 2112).
13. Mori et al. has been discussed above, re claim 10; but does not teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the motor drive applies the radial force to the rotor during a first interval determined with respect to a rotational speed of the rotor being below a predetermined speed threshold required to establish a pressurized gas layer for levitation and removes the radial force to the rotor during a second interval determined with respect to the rotor speed of the rotor being above the predetermined speed threshold.
Heshmat et al. teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing (foil bearing fig 14A) and the motor drive applies the radial force (or liftoff force see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) to the rotor during a first interval determined with respect to a rotational speed of the rotor being below a predetermined speed threshold required to establish a pressurized gas layer (the gas layer cannot be established until liftoff speed is achieved, see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) for levitation and removes the radial force to the rotor during a second interval (the magnetic force decreases once liftoff speed is achieved, see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) determined with respect to the rotor speed of the rotor being above the predetermined speed threshold (the speed of the rotor is higher than liftoff speed as indicated by the decrease in magnetic force in the bearing, see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) so as to share the load of balancing the shaft which prolongs the service life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Mori et al. so that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the motor drive applies the radial force to the rotor during a first interval determined with respect to a rotational speed of the rotor being below a predetermined speed threshold required to establish a pressurized gas layer for levitation and removes the radial force to the rotor during a second interval determined with respect to the rotor speed of the rotor being above the predetermined speed threshold, as taught by Heshmat et al. so as to prolong the service life of the motor.
14. Mori et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the predetermined speed threshold is a speed necessary to develop a gas film in the gas bearing supporting the rotor without the sliding contact of bearing components.
Heshmat et al. teach that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the predetermined speed threshold is a speed necessary to develop a gas film in the gas bearing supporting the rotor without the sliding contact of bearing components (or liftoff force see col 15 last para-col 16 first para for complete explanation) so as to share the load of balancing the shaft which prolongs the service life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Mori et al. so that the at least one bearing is a gas bearing and the predetermined speed threshold is a speed necessary to develop a gas film in the gas bearing supporting the rotor without the sliding contact of bearing components, as taught by Heshmat et al. so as to prolong the service life of the motor.
15. Mori et al. teach:
The method of claim 13 wherein the electric motor is a combined winding motor and wherein during the second interval at least some electrical energy used to produce the radial force is instead applied as a torque force (This appears to be a functional recitation that does not offer any structure that would distinguish the claimed invention over that of the prior art…as such the limitations at question are being construed as being inherently disclosed by Mori et al., MPEP 2112).
18. Mori et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 wherein the bearing is one or more magnetic bearings together providing a maximum levitation component (“providing a maximum levitation…” appears to be a functional recitation that does not impart any structure that would distinguish applicant’s claimed invention over that of the prior art…Still further, Mori et al. motor discloses the structural limitations that applicant has claimed…As such the limitations at question are being construed as inherently disclosed by Mori et al., MPEP 2112) less than a weight of the rotor and shaft.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834