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
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant provided replacement sheets received 5/4/2026 and amended the specification with relation to the drawings to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to due to an informality. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1 and 3-9 were rejected as being obvious over Baserrah in view of Nashiki. Claim 2 was rejected as being obvious over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Pulnikov. Claim 10 was rejected as being obvious over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Hoffmann. Claims 11 and 13-19 were rejected as being obvious over Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Magnus. Claim 12 was rejected as being obvious over Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Magnus, and Pulnikov. Claim 20 was rejected as being obvious over Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Magnus, and Hoffmann. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0228981 to Dajaku.
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 is 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 and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0228981 to Dajaku.
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 by a number between one and three, inclusive.
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 increase efficiency (Paragraph [00103]).
Baserrah in view of Nashiki does not teach the first number of turns and the second number of turns being different by a number between one and three, inclusive.
However, Dajaku teaches an electric machine with a first number of turns and a second number of turns being different by a number between one and three, inclusive (Paragraph [0076]-[0078]; [0116]-[0118])
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 turn number of Dajaku due to a reduction of harmonics (Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 3, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1, wherein Dajaku further teaches the second number of turns of the second phase winding being three fewer than the first number of turns of the first phase winding (Paragraph [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 9, Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Dajaku 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 Dajaku 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 and Dajaku teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku 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 Dajaku 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 and Dajaku teaches the multi-phase TFM of claim 1.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku with the cross-sectional shapes of Hoffmann to better control the amperage and therefore magnetic flux of the separated cores (Paragraph [0016]).
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Dajaku, 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 by a number between one and three, inclusive.
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), the first number of turns and the second number of turns being different by a number between one and three, inclusive.
However, Dajaku teaches an electric machine with a first number of turns and a second number of turns being different by a number between one and three, inclusive (Paragraph [0076]-[0078]; [0116]-[0118])
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 turn number of Dajaku due to a reduction of harmonics (Paragraph [0079]).
Baserrah in view of Nashiki and Dajaku 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 and Dajaku 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, and Magnus and in further view of Pulnikov.
Regarding claim 12, Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Dajaku, and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, and Magnus and in further view of Pulnikov.
Regarding claim 20, Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Dajaku, and Magnus teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 11.
Baserrah in view of Nashiki, Dajaku, 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, Dajaku, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights