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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the specification dated 11/19/2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112b” has been used to designate both a rotor core and a stator core in FIG. 8. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
122b as seen in paragraph [0053].
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
13 and 15 as seen in FIG. 1.
110c as seen in FIG. 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0054] it appears that the phrase “third rotor assembly 110a” should instead be “third rotor assembly 110c.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent No. 2 317 633 to Baserrah in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0099082 to Nashiki.
Regarding claim 1, Baserrah teaches a multi-phase transverse flux machine (TFM) (FIG. 3, 50) comprising:
a rotor assembly (FIG. 3; 52, 54, 56) configured to rotate about an axis and including a plurality of rotor cores (FIG. 3; 52, 54, 56) and a plurality of pairs of permanent magnets (FIG. 1; 14, 16); and
a stator assembly (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62) including a plurality of stator windings (FIG. 4, 64) and a transverse flux core (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62) configured to direct a magnetic flux in each of an axial direction and a radial direction toward the rotor assembly (Paragraph [0016]-[0031]).
Baserrah does not teach the plurality of stator windings including a first phase winding having a first number of turns and a second phase winding having a second number of turns that is fewer than the first number of turns.
However, Nashiki teaches a plurality of stator windings including a first phase winding (FIG. 1, 15) having a first number of turns and a second phase winding (FIG. 1, 16) having a second number of turns that is fewer than the first number of turns (Paragraph [0213999]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah with the turn numbers of Nashiki to increase efficiency (Paragraph [00103]).
Regarding claim 3, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1, wherein Baserrah further teaches the TFM has an external rotor configuration, with the rotor assembly extending annularly about the stator assembly (FIG. 3; 52, 54, 56).
Regarding claim 4, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1, wherein Baserrah further teaches the transverse flux core of the stator assembly including a plurality of stator cores (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62), with each of the stator cores defining a ring shape and holding a corresponding stator winding (FIG. 4, 64) of the plurality of stator windings.
Regarding claim 5, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 4, wherein Baserrah further teaches the stator cores are stacked axially and shifted circumferentially from one-another (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62; note relative stator pole positioning).
Regarding claim 6, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 4, wherein Baserrah further teaches the plurality of stator cores being stacked axially (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62),
wherein the first phase winding having the first number of turns is disposed within an exterior stator core of the plurality of stator cores located adjacent to an axial end of the stator assembly (FIG. 3, 58), and
wherein the second phase winding having the second number of turns (Nashiki Paragraph [0212]) is disposed within an interior stator core of the plurality of stator cores which is spaced apart from the axial end of the stator assembly (FIG. 3, 60).
Regarding claim 7, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1, wherein Baserrah further teaches the plurality of stator windings including three of the stator windings (Paragraph [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki does not teach the second number of turns of the second phase winding being three fewer than the first number of turns of the first phase winding.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah in view of Nashiki such that the second number of turns of the second phase winding is three fewer than the first number of turns of the first phase winding as it would have been obvious to try to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success with relation to the number of turns.
Regarding claim 9, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1, wherein Baserrah further teaches at least one of the plurality of stator cores being made of a soft magnetic core (SMC) material (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0267929 to Pulnikov et al. (hereinafter Pulnikov).
Regarding claim 2, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki does not teach the TFM having an internal rotor configuration, with the stator assembly extending annularly about the rotor assembly.
However, Pulnikov teaches a transverse flux machine with an internal rotor configuration (FIG. 4, 22) with the stator assembly (FIG. 4, 10) extending annularly about the rotor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah in view of Nashiki with the internal rotor of Pulnikov to reduce the inertial mass of the rotor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0061451 to Hoffmann et al. (hereinafter Hoffmann).
Regarding claim 10, Baserrah in view of Nashiki teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki does not teach the first phase winding having a first cross-sectional shape and the second phase winding having a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape.
However, Hoffmann teaches a stator core with a first winding (FIG. 3, 20) having a first cross-sectional shape and a second stator core with a second winding (FIG. 3, 28) having a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape (Paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah in view of Nashiki with the cross-sectional shapes of Hoffmann to better control the amperage and therefore magnetic flux of the separated cores (Paragraph [0016]).
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and U.S. Patent No. 6,817,437 to Magnus et al. (hereinafter Magnus).
Regarding claim 11, Baserrah teaches a multi-phase transverse flux machine (TFM) (FIG. 3, 50) comprising:
a rotor assembly (FIG. 3; 52, 54, 56) configured to rotate about an axis and including a plurality of rotor cores (FIG. 3; 52, 54, 56) and a plurality of pairs of permanent magnets (FIG. 1; 14, 16); and
a stator assembly (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62) including a plurality of stator windings (FIG. 4, 64) and a transverse flux core (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62) configured to direct a magnetic flux in each of an axial direction and a radial direction toward the rotor assembly (Paragraph [0016]-[0031]).
Baserrah does not teach a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle, comprising:
a handwheel actuator coupled to apply a torque to a steering wheel;
the handwheel actuator including a multi-phase transverse flux machine (TFM); and
the plurality of stator windings including a first phase winding having a first number of turns and a second phase winding having a second number of turns that is fewer than the first number of turns.
However, Nashiki teaches a plurality of stator windings including a first phase winding (FIG. 1, 15) having a first number of turns and a second phase winding (FIG. 1, 16) having a second number of turns that is fewer than the first number of turns (Paragraph [0212]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah with the turn numbers of Nashiki to reduce potential torque ripple (Paragraph [0213]).
Baserrah in view of Nashiki does not teach a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle, comprising:
a handwheel actuator coupled to apply a torque to a steering wheel;
the handwheel actuator including a multi-phase transverse flux machine (TFM).
However, Magnus teaches a steer-by-wire system (FIG. 2, 600) for a vehicle (Abstract), comprising:
a handwheel actuator (FIG. 3, 100) coupled to apply a torque to a steering wheel (FIG. 1, 10);
the handwheel actuator including a machine (FIG. 2, 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah in view of Nashiki by incorporating it into the steer-by-wire system of Magnus for the steer-by-wire system of Magnus to benefit from the features of the multi-phase TFM of Baserrah in view of Nashiki.
Regarding claim 13, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11, wherein Baserrah further teaches the TFM has an external rotor configuration, with the rotor assembly extending annularly about the stator assembly (FIG. 3; 52, 54, 56).
Regarding claim 14, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11, wherein Baserrah further teaches the transverse flux core of the stator assembly including a plurality of stator cores (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62), with each of the stator cores defining a ring shape and holding a corresponding stator winding (FIG. 4, 64) of the plurality of stator windings.
Regarding claim 15, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 14, wherein Baserrah further teaches the stator cores are stacked axially and shifted circumferentially from one-another (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62; note relative stator pole positioning).
Regarding claim 16, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 14, wherein Baserrah further teaches the plurality of stator cores being stacked axially (FIG. 3; 58, 60, 62),
wherein the first phase winding having the first number of turns is disposed within an exterior stator core of the plurality of stator cores located adjacent to an axial end of the stator assembly (FIG. 3, 58), and
wherein the second phase winding having the second number of turns (Nashiki Paragraph [0212]) is disposed within an interior stator core of the plurality of stator cores which is spaced apart from the axial end of the stator assembly (FIG. 3, 60).
Regarding claim 17, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11, wherein Baserrah further teaches the plurality of stator windings including three of the stator windings (Paragraph [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11, wherein Magnus further teaches the handwheel actuator being coupled to the steering wheel via a direct drive mechanism (Column 6 lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 19, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11, wherein Baserrah further teaches at least one of the plurality of stator cores being made of a soft magnetic core (SMC) material (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus and in further view of Pulnikov.
Regarding claim 12, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus does not teach the TFM having an internal rotor configuration, with the stator assembly extending annularly about the rotor assembly.
However, Pulnikov teaches a transverse flux machine with an internal rotor configuration (FIG. 4, 22) with the stator assembly (FIG. 4, 10) extending annularly about the rotor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steer-by-wire system of Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus with the internal rotor of Pulnikov to reduce the inertial mass of the rotor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus and in further view of Hoffmann.
Regarding claim 20, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus does not teach the first phase winding having a first cross-sectional shape and the second phase winding having a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape.
However, Hoffmann teaches a stator core with a first winding (FIG. 3, 20) having a first cross-sectional shape and a second stator core with a second winding (FIG. 3, 28) having a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape (Paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steer-by-wire system of Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus with the cross-sectional shapes of Hoffmann to better control the amperage and therefore magnetic flux of the separated cores (Paragraph [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834