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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/18/2026 has been entered.
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The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to amendments filed 6/6/2025.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.
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 de Larminat et al. (US 20120063918).
1. de Larminat et al. teach:
An electric motor apparatus (figs 2 & 3) comprising:
an electric motor (figs 2 & 3) having a stator (annotated fig 2 below) and a rotor (annotated fig 2 below) rotatable on a shaft 22 about an axis with respect to the stator, the electric motor including a winding set (annotated fig 2 below) producing a magnetic field applying a torque (for explanation of levitating the shaft prior to rotation, see paras 0002 last two sentences and para 0004 1st sentence) between the rotor and stator;
at least one bearing 46 and 20 supporting the shaft for rotation in response to the torque; and
a motor drive (for the controller that levitates the shaft, see para 0002 last two sentences) controlling the winding set of the electric motor to apply a radial force/levitation to the rotor independent of torque and independent of a contemporaneous measurement (there are no sensors) of radial rotor displacement/levitation with respect to the stator.
PNG
media_image1.png
807
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. de Larminat et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 wherein the radial force is vertical (levitation implies vertical, see paras 0002 last two sentences and para 0004 1st sentence).
3. de Larminat 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 de Larminat 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. de Larminat et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 further including a compressor fan 26 attached to the rotor shaft (fig 3).
9. de Larminat et al. teach:
The electric motor apparatus of claim 1 wherein the bearing is one or more magnetic bearings 20 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, de Larminat 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. de Larminat et al. teach:
A method of operating an electric motor (figs 2 & 3) having a stator (annotated fig 2 above) and a rotor (annotated fig 2 above) rotatable on a shaft 22 about an axis with respect to the stator (figs 2 & 3), the electric motor including a winding set (annotated fig 2 above) producing a magnetic field applying a torque (for explanation of levitating the shaft prior to rotation, see paras 0002 last two sentences and para 0004 1st sentence) between the rotor and stator and providing at least one bearing 46 and 20 supporting the shaft for rotation in response to the torque (for explanation of levitating the shaft prior to rotation, see paras 0002 last two sentences and para 0004 1st sentence);
the method comprising:
controlling electrical power to the winding set (for explanation of levitating the shaft prior to rotation, see paras 0002 last two sentences and para 0004 1st sentence) to apply a radial force/levitation (inherent since this is a radial airgap motor, MPEP 2112) to the rotor independent of torque force (levitation is independent of torque) and independent of a contemporaneous measure radial rotor displacement (there are no sensors) with respect to the stator.
11. de Larminat et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 wherein the radial force is vertical (levitation implies vertical, see paras 0002 last two sentences and para 0004 1st sentence).
12. de Larminat 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 de Larminat 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. de Larminat 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 de Larminat et al. discloses the limitations of claim 7 inherently, MPEP 2112).
17. de Larminat et al. teach:
The method of claim 10 further including a compressor fan 26 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 de Larminat et al. in view of Heshmat et al. (US 6965181).
4. de Larminat 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 de Larminat 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. de Larminat 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 de Larminat 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. de Larminat 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 de Larminat et al., MPEP 2112).
13. de Larminat 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 de Larminat 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. de Larminat 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 de Larminat 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. de Larminat 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 de Larminat et al., MPEP 2112).
18. de Larminat 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
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
Prosecution Insights