DETAILED ACTION
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 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 35, Applicant is citing Walsh in the argument, but it seems applicant is citing Hunstable instead. Applicant argues “Independent claim 35 recites that each of the plurality of coil assemblies includes respective coil and a respective core stack with a first portion and a second portion, where the coil is wound at least partially about the first portion such that the second portion is between the coil and at least one magnet of one of the magnet sets.
Applicant respectfully submits that Walsh does not disclose, teach, or suggest this structure. The Office Action cites to FIG. 4C of Walsh, which shows an individual tooth 506a' of Walsh's stator. The tooth 506a' includes fins 518, 519, 520, and 522 along the periphery thereof. The Office Action cites to the fins as the claimed second portion of the core stack, and the ring core 504 shown in FIG. 4C as the first portion of the core stack. However, as best shown in FIG. 4A, the ring core 504 is not a distinct piece of each and every coil assembly of Walsh's stator. Instead, Walsh's stator includes a single ring core 504 that is shared by every single tooth 506/506a/506a', and around which every single coil is wound. Walsh does not have coil assemblies where each separate coil assembly includes a respective coil and a respective core stack. Instead, Walsh has a single core structure that is shared by every single coil, which is the opposite from the claimed device.” Examiner disagrees. As seen in FIG. 4D, each coil is wound around a respective part of the ring core 504 and between a respective tooth 506a’. Col. 4 ll. 52-57 discloses that the core can be made from laminated metal sheets. This would indicate that each coil would be wound around a respective lamination of the ring core, where the ring core is laminated in the circumferential direction, disclosing claim 35. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 54, Applicant argues that “First, this is the incorrect standard for determining whether a prior art device discloses method steps. Instead, as directly stated in MPEP § 2112.02(I), a prior art device will be considered to anticipate a method claim "if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed." Whether a device is merely capable of performing a claimed method is irrelevant, otherwise claims directed to novel methods would never be allowable unless they could only be performed by novel structure. Instead, the required questions is whether a claimed method would be performed during the normal and usual operation of the device. Here, that answer is no. Neither Walsh nor Hunstable disclose operating a first rotor as a generator while a second rotor is simultaneously operated as a motor. Instead, Walsh expressly discloses that its device may be operated as a motor, or "may alternatively be operated as a generator by reversing" the process to operate it as a motor. Walsh, ¶ [0045]. Thus, the normal and usual operation of Walsh's device-even modified by Hunstable to adjust the direction of magnetic flux-does not perform the claimed method, which thus cannot be said to be disclosed by the combination.” Examiner disagrees. The rejection is not based on an anticipatory rejection, but an obviousness rejection. The method of making the invention in claim 54 would impart a specific structure required by the method. Walsh in view of Hunstable discloses all the required structure of the method. In view of the structure and the disclosure of Walsh in ¶ [0045], Walsh in view of Hunstable would be capable of the functionality of one rotor as a generator while another rotor as a motor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to use Walsh as recited in claim 54. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Second, Applicant respectfully submits that in any case, it would not have been obvious to modify Walsh in view of Hunstable as asserted by the Office Action. Walsh's machine includes rotors that utilize a specific arrangement of magnets known as a Halbach cylinder. This arrangement of magnets is illustrated, for example, in FIG. 3. Walsh's machine 100 includes a first outer rotor 104 that includes a circumferential series of magnets 118a-118d, and a second inner rotor 106 that includes a circumferential series of magnets 128a-128d. Importantly, Walsh specifically requires the magnets 118a-118d and 128a-128d to be arranged so that the magnetic orientation rotates 90° for each adjacent magnet. As shown in FIG. 3, this arrangement necessarily includes magnets that direct magnetic flux in a clockwise direction (such as magnets 118c and 128c), and magnets that direct magnetic flux in a counter-clockwise direction (such as magnets 118a and 128a). This arrangement of magnets forms Halbach cylinders that are "magnetically coupled" to each other, because fluxes from the two ring-shaped sets of magnets shown in FIG. 3 interact with other magnets. Walsh, T [0038]. The sets of magnets shown in FIG. 3 form a number of individual magnetic circuits, so that the two sets of magnets are "held together by magnetic reluctance." Walsh, 1 [0039].
During operation, rotation of either the outer rotor 104 or the inner rotor 106 causes the other rotor to rotate, due to the magnetic circuits formed by the magnets 118a-118d and 128a- 128d. Walsh, ¶ [0040]. It is the specific arrangement of the magnets-precisely that some magnets direct flux radially inward and outward, and some magnets direct flux clockwise and counter-clockwise-that cause the primary rotor 104 and the secondary rotor 106 to "rotate synchronously together." Id. Thus, Walsh specifically requires magnets that direct magnetic flux in directions that are not axial or radial, contrary to the claims. The Office Action alleges that it would have been obvious to modify the direction of Walsh's magnets "for the advantages of producing a greater torque," citing col. 12, lines 60-66 of Hunstable. But Hunstable does not attribute greater torque to axial and radial magnetic flux, but instead attributes it to the width of the outer walls of the magnet sets being larger than the lateral depth of the magnet sets. Reviewing FIG. 1 of Walsh however shows that Walsh's magnets already have this feature. And if the orientation of Walsh's magnets were to be modified as suggested by the Office Action, Walsh's magnet sets would no longer be linked by magnetic reluctance. Walsh's machine would no longer function properly, or indeed even at all. Because of this, there cannot be any suggestion or motivation to make the alleged modification, because it renders Walsh's machine unsuitable for its intended purpose (MPEP § 2143.01(V)) and alters the principle of operation of Walsh's machine (MPEP § 2143.01(VI). Examiner disagrees. By changing Walsh’s magnetic orientation of the magnets, the different rotors may become magnetically decoupled and rotate separately, but the rotors would still operate as either a motor or a generator. This modification would allow Walsh’s rotors to be used as a motor and a generator at the same time. Also, Hunstable in col. 18 ll. 15-32 discloses that focusing the magnetic flux so that the forces are all in the direction of motion creates more torque, which the Halbach array magnets do not have. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
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. Therefore, the “the plurality of spokes of each rotor spanning 360 degrees of a circumference of the axle and such that none of the one or more rotors forms a continuous circular assembly” in claim 43 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 43, 45, 47-50 and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 43 recites “the plurality of spokes of each rotor spanning 360 degrees of a circumference of the axle and such that none of the one or more rotors forms a continuous circular assembly” has not been disclosed in the specification. Applicant stated that the publication in ¶ [0020] discloses the amended claim, but the paragraph does not disclose “none of the one or more rotors forms a continuous circular assembly.” ¶ [0020] merely discloses that instead of a circular support for the frame 44, radial spokes are used instead to support the magnets, not that the rotors are not a continuous circular assembly. Thus, the new claim amendment is new matter.
Claims 45, 47-50 and 52-53 are rejected for depending upon claim 43.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 35-42 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US 2015/0171694 A1) in view of Hunstable (US 9,729,016 B1).
Regarding claim 35, Walsh discloses a flux machine (700; FIG 7, 9; ¶ [0047]) comprising:
a stator (102; FIG 1);
a plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506) configured to rotate in a rotary direction about a central axis of the plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506), the plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506) including at least a first rotor (106 or 506) and a second rotor (106 or 506) configured to rotate independently from one another about the central axis in the rotary direction (¶ [0046])-[0047]);
a plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 928b) coupled to the plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506; ¶ [0047]),
a plurality of coil assemblies (110) coupled to the stator (102), each of the plurality of coil assemblies (110) being oriented such that current within the plurality of coil assemblies generally flows in a plane perpendicular to the rotary direction (FIG 2; as seen in FIG 9, the rotary direction is either into or out of the page, and the current flows perpendicular to the rotary direction);
PNG
media_image1.png
334
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of magnets sets (128b, 138b, 928b) includes a first magnet (938b) coupled to the first rotor (one of 106 or 506) and a second magnet (128b) coupled to the second rotor (other one of 106 or 506 of first rotor), the first magnet (938b) of each of the plurality of magnets sets (128b, 138b, 928b) being configured to direct magnetic flux in an axial direction toward or away from a first side of a corresponding one of the plurality of coil assemblies (110), the second magnet (128b) of each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 928b) being configured to direct magnetic flux in a radial direction toward or away from a second side of the corresponding one of the plurality of coil assemblies (110; FIG 9; ¶ [0047]); and
wherein the first rotor (106 or 506) includes a first axle configured to rotate about the central axis and the second rotor (106 or 506) includes a second axle configured to rotate about the central axis such that the first magnet (938b) of each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 928b) is configured to move relative to the second magnet (128b) of each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 928b) when electrical current is present in at least one of the plurality of coil assemblies (110; FIG 9; ¶ [0047]).
Walsh fails to disclose each magnet in each of the plurality of magnets sets being configured to direct magnetic flux in an axial direction or a radial direction; and
each of the plurality of coil assemblies including a respective coil and a respective core stack that has a first portion and a second portion, the respective coil of each of the plurality of coil assemblies being wound at least partially about a first portion of the respective core stack, the second portion of the respective core stack being positioned between at least one side of the respective coil and at least one magnet from one of the plurality of magnet sets.
Hunstable discloses each magnet in each of the plurality of magnets sets (420) being configured to direct magnetic flux (426) in an axial direction or a radial direction (FIG 7C; the flux 426 are directed towards the coil 526 in the radial or axial direction); and
each of the plurality of coil assemblies (500) including a respective coil (526) and a respective core stack (504, 506a’) that has a first portion (504) and a second portion (506a’), the respective coil (526) of each of the plurality of coil assemblies (500) being wound at least partially about a first portion (504) of the respective core stack (504, 506a’), the second portion (506a’) of the respective core stack (504, 506a’) being positioned between at least one side of the respective coil (526) and at least one magnet (402, 404, 406, 408) from one of the plurality of magnet sets (420; FIG 2; FIG 4C discloses fins 518-520, 522 which is between the magnets and the coils).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Walsh to incorporate Hunstable disclosing each magnet in each of the plurality of magnets sets being configured to direct magnetic flux in an axial direction or a radial direction; and each of the plurality of coil assemblies including a respective coil and a respective core stack that has a first portion and a second portion, the respective coil of each of the plurality of coil assemblies being wound at least partially about a first portion of the respective core stack, the second portion of the respective core stack being positioned between at least one side of the respective coil and at least one magnet from one of the plurality of magnet sets, for the advantages of producing a greater torque (col. 12 lines 60-66).
Regarding claim 36/35, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 35. Walsh further discloses the first magnet (938b) and the second magnet (128b) of each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 938b) are permanent magnets, electromagnets, or a combination of permanent magnets and electromagnets (claim 1, ¶ [0033] each rotor employs permanent magnets).
Regarding claim 37/35, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 35. Walsh further discloses wherein both the first magnet (938b) and the second magnet (128b) direct magnetic flux (901) orthogonal to the rotary direction (FIG 9, rotary direction into or out of the page, which is orthogonal to the flux 901 in FIG 9).
Regarding claim 38/35, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 35. Walsh further discloses wherein magnetic flux of each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 938b) is configured to be directed perpendicularly to a plane of the current flowing in a corresponding coil assembly (110; FIG 2; as seen in FIG 9, the rotary direction is either into or out of the page, and the current flows perpendicular to the rotary direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39/35, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 35. Walsh further discloses wherein the first rotor (106 or 506) includes a third magnet (128b) and a fourth magnet (938b right; ¶ [0047] magnets 938b can be mounted on one or two rotors).
Regarding claim 40/35, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 35. Walsh further teaches comprising a third rotor ([0047]), and wherein each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 938b) further includes a third magnet (right magnet 938b) and a fourth magnet (138b), the third magnet (938b) being coupled to the first rotor (106, 506; [0047]) and configured to direct magnetic flux toward the corresponding one of the plurality of coil assemblies (110) in an axial direction opposing the magnet flux of the first magnet (left magnet 938b), the fourth magnet (138b) being coupled to the third rotor ([0047] discloses the magnets can be attached to separate or same rotors), such that each of the plurality of coil assemblies (110) on the stator (102) is surrounded by the first magnet (left magnet 938b), the second magnet (128b), the third magnet (right magnet 938b), and the fourth magnet (138b) of one of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 938b; [0047]).
As disclosed in [0047] the magnets can be mounted on rotors which can be physically connected to each other in any combination or used to drive separate equipment.
Regarding claim 41/40, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 40. Walsh further teaches further wherein third rotor includes a third axle ([0047]), and wherein each of the first axle, the second axle, and the third axle are configured to rotate independently of each of the other axles ([0046]-[0047]).
PNG
media_image2.png
96
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42/41, Walsh in view of Hunstable was discussed above in claim 41. While Walsh in view of Hunstable does not disclose the use of the plurality of rotors as a motor and a generator simultaneously, as Walsh in view of Hunstable has all the structure of the limitation, it is capable of the limitation within claim 42. Note that [0045] of Walsh discloses that the motor can be operated as a generator if needed.
Regarding claim 54, Walsh discloses providing the flux machine (700), the flux machine (700; FIG 7, 9; ¶ [0047]) comprising:
a stator (102; FIG 1);
a plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506), the plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506) including a first rotor (106 or 506) and a second rotor (106 or 506) configured to rotate independently about a central axis of the plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506) in the rotary direction (¶ [0047]);
a plurality of coil assemblies (110) coupled to the stator (102; FIG 1) and;
a plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 928b) coupled to the plurality of rotors (104, 106, 506), each of the plurality of magnets sets (128b, 138b, 928b) including a first magnet (938b) coupled to the first rotor (one of 106 or 506) and a second magnet (128b) coupled to the second rotor (other one of 106 or 506), the first rotor (106 or 506) including a first axle configured to rotate about the central axis, the second rotor (106 or 506) including a second axle configured to rotate about the central axis (¶ [0047]), the first magnet (938b) of each of the plurality of magnets sets (128b, 138b, 928b) being configured to direct magnetic flux (901) in the axial direction toward or away from a respective one of the plurality of coil assemblies (110), the second magnet (128b) of each of the plurality of magnet sets (128b, 138b, 928b) being configured to direct magnetic flux (901) in the radial direction toward or away from the respective one of the plurality of coil assemblies (110; FIG 9);
PNG
media_image1.png
334
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
electricaly coupling the plurality of coil assemblies (110) to an inlet current source (114) to cause an inlet electrical current to flow through the plurality of coil assemblies (110; FIG 1; ¶ [0028]).
While Walsh does not explicitly disclose the first rotor acts as a generator simultaneously as the second rotor acts as a motor, Walsh does disclose that driving the first rotor (106) externally (¶ [0045] mechanical toque may be applied to rotate the secondary rotor 106) to induce a supplementary electrical current in the plurality of coil assemblies (110) while the second rotor (104) is simultaneously driven by at least the inlet electrical current flowing through the plurality of coil assemblies (110). This indicates that Walsh is capable of the desired functionality of claim 54, where one rotor acts as a generator while another rotor acts as a motor.
Walsh fails to disclose each magnet in each of the plurality of magnets sets being configured to direct magnetic flux in an axial direction or a radial direction.
Hunstable discloses each magnet in each of the plurality of magnets sets (420) being configured to direct magnetic flux in an axial direction or a radial direction (FIG 7C; the flux 426 are directed towards the coil 526 in the radial or axial direction); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Walsh to incorporate Hunstable disclosing each magnet in each of the plurality of magnets sets being configured to direct magnetic flux in an axial direction or a radial direction, for the advantages of producing a greater torque (col. 12 lines 60-66).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights