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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In ¶[0025], “Fig.4” should be --Fig.5--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claim 1 recites “an energy regenerative motor comprising:
a controller for ingoing electrical energy (Fig.5);
an inverter for outgoing electrical energy (Fig.5);
a battery configured to send and receive electrical energy (Fig.5);
a stator [114] used to align interwoven field coils ;
a plurality of permanent magnets [102];
an armature [flywheel 100], that aligns permanent magnets to create rotation; and
a plurality of interwoven electrically conductive field coils [induction coil 108 & collection coil 110] that propel the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields.”
The specification teaches the invention “…includes a hubless magnetic gyroscope that creates leveraged rotational torque/horsepower from its perimeter, that is propelled by a circulatory field double helix coil assembly located proximate to the magnetic gyroscope, and that produce both phasing electromagnetic energy in one of its two strands while the second strand returns the unused portion of the electromagnetic fields to the power source as electricity to increase overall efficiency” (abstract). Similarly, in ¶[0006], the specification teaches the invention “includes a hubless magnetic gyroscope that is propelled by a ring that contains circulatory field coils that produce phasing electromagnetic energy located proximate to the magnetic gyroscope. The electrically conductive circulatory field coil system returns the unused portion of the electromagnetic fields back to the power source as electricity to increase overall efficiency.”
As seen in Figs.4-5 and described in ¶[0024]-¶[0025], the “increase [in] overall efficiency” of the system comes about from “a segment of a field coil that is constructed from two strands of copper twisted together in a double helix coil, or materials with similar properties. Strand 108, the induction coil, receives energy to create magnetic fields and strand 110, collection coil, circulates unused magnetic energy that is converted back into electricity, to the batteries….Energy from the battery is sent to the circulatory field coil's induction side 108 through a microprocessor controller while excess energy is converted into electricity and is sent back to the battery through an inverter.”
PNG
media_image1.png
599
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But, the description of an “increase” in “overall efficiency” by “circulation” of “unused magnetic energy” is not credible since it suggests and encompasses a perpetual motion machine because it implies the entropy of the system decreases over time. This is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy of any system tends to increase over time, meaning that systems progress from an ordered state towards a more disordered or random state. The description that the invention exhibits an “increase” in “overall efficiency” implies the opposite.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of interwoven field coils are configured to create a motor that is its own generator.” This language also suggests and encompasses a perpetual motion machine. That is, a “motor that is its own generator” implies the motor powers itself. This violates the principle of conservation of energy, as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics since entropy would decrease over time in such a system.
Further, the asserted utility of “increasing overall efficiency” is not credible due to induced back-EMF generated by the induction coils and the mutual inductance between the interwoven collection and induction coils. It is well-known that back-EMF is generated in conventional DC motors which travels in the opposite direction to the supply voltage, thus increasing input energy and reducing efficiency. See, e.g., Ny (US 10,432,079 c.3:24-32).
Further, due to the interwoven, co-axial geometry of the induction and collection coils 108 & 110, they have a mutual inductance. The magnetic field lines produced by the current in the induction coils pass through the collection coils and induce an opposing emf. This increases energy required by the induction coils compared to a device without collection coils. Similarly, the induced current in the collection coils produces an opposing emf in the induction coils, which further decreases overall efficiency.
Thus, the claimed invention lacks a credible asserted utility since it violates and is inconsistent with known scientific principles and is “speculative at best” as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility of “increasing overall efficiency” were actually present in the invention. In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 1-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Per MPEP 2164.01, any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term "undue experimentation," it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), there are many factors to be considered in a Wands analysis when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue."
These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
While the analysis and conclusion of a lack of enablement are based on the factors discussed in MPEP 2164.01(a) and the evidence as a whole, it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the enablement rejection.
However, it is improper to conclude that a disclosure is not enabling based on an analysis of only one of the above factors while ignoring one or more of the others. The examiner s analysis must consider all the evidence related to each of these factors, and any conclusion of non-enablement must be based on the evidence as a whole. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 740, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The breadth of the claims
The “plurality of interwoven electrically conductive field coils that propel the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields” are a basis for the disclosed utility of “increas[ing] overall efficiency”. See abstract, ¶[0006] & ¶[0020]. In claim 1, they are claimed broadly in functional terms. The only structural feature is that they are “interwoven”. Otherwise, they are only claimed as “propel[ling] the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields” [sic]. Presumably this refers to the induction coil/strand 108 that “receives energy to create magnetic fields” and a collection coil/strand 110 that “circulates unused magnetic energy that is converted back into electricity, to the batteries” (¶[0024]). The induction coil/strand 108 appears to operate in the manner of a DC motor where the coils are actuated by the microprocessor controller in a sequential manner to interact with magnetic poles 102 of the gyroscope flywheel 100 and drive it. It is unclear what “unused magnetic energy” means in context. Presumably, current is induced in the collection coil/strand 110 when magnetic poles 102 of the gyroscope flywheel 100 pass teeth 112 in the manner of a DC generator.
The nature of the invention
The invention is speculative and can be understood to encompass embodiments which violate known scientific principles. As noted in the preceding section, the description of an “increase” in “overall efficiency” by “circulation” of “unused magnetic energy” suggests and encompasses a perpetual motion machine since it describes a system where the entropy decreases over time. This is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Further, the asserted utility of “increasing overall efficiency” is not credible due to mutual inductance between the interwoven collection and induction coils. The magnetic field lines produced by the current in the induction coils 108 pass through the collection coils 110 and induce an opposing emf. This increases energy required by the induction coils compared to a device without collection coils. Similarly, the induced current in the collection coils produces an opposing emf in the induction coils, which further decreases overall efficiency.
(C) The state of the prior art
Several electric machines on record provide “regenerative” functions.
Ny (US 10,432,079) teaches a BLDC motor 100 comprising a stator having a plurality of teeth (poles) 13a positioned around a flywheel 12, each tooth supporting a field coil (i.e., "both energizer and inducer winding segments are wound on or share the same stator pole"; c.7:2-3) having an induction (energizer) coil 16 configured to create a magnetic field based on the electrical energy provided by the battery and to deliver energy to the flywheel (i.e., "energizer windings 16 are designated to produce torque in the permanent magnet rotor 12, c.5:51-53); and a collection (inducer) coil 15 that collects unused energy of the energy that remains unused by the flywheel (i.e., "inducer windings 15 are designated to generate electrical energy and energizer windings 16 are designated to produce torque in the permanent magnet rotor 12, c.5:51-53; Fig.1).
Ny’s induction coil 16 and collection coil 15 are not “interwoven” as in the invention. Ny teaches “[p]lacing the energizer windings as far away as possible from the air gap and flux density limits the amount of the rotor's magnetic field from cutting across the energizer coil windings, thereby limiting the amount of back-EMF from generating in the energizer windings. Thus, with less back-EMF to overcome, a lesser amount of energy from the supply input source is drawn to drive the motor” (c.3:41-48). See also c.7:59-c.8:1.
Fisenko (WO 2017/0305509) teaches a method and apparatus for recovering energy of a DC motor including an induction (excitation) coil 1 configured to create a magnetic field based on the electrical energy provided by the battery and to deliver energy to the “gyroscopic flywheel” (i.e., stator excitation coils are energized by electrical excitation pulses to produce force effects causing the rotor to deflect; p.2) and a collection (induction) coil 14 that “collects unused energy of the energy that remains unused by the flywheel” (i.e., self-induced (inverse) electro-motive voltage is taken off the inductance coils to the energy recovery circuit; p.4).
Fisenko’s induction coil and collection coil are not “interwoven” as in the invention.
Thus, the prior art demonstrates use induction and collection coils to provide “regenerative” functions are well-known. The prior art also indicates the field is predictable, especially with respect to use of induction and collection coils for driving a machine while simultaneously generating energy, as well as back-emf effects produced by the coils.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
As noted in (A) above, the invention appears to operate as both a DC motor and DC generator. The induction coil/strands 108 actuated by the microprocessor controller in a sequential manner interact with magnetic poles 102 of the gyroscope flywheel 100 and drive it, and the magnetic poles 102 of the gyroscope flywheel 100 induce current in the collection coil/strands 110. DC motor and generators are well known, per se. But, the specific sequence of DC motor/DC generator operation is not described, nor is it clear from the description what is meant by “errant magnetic fields” or how they are collected at the same time the field coils propel the flywheel. Further, due to mutual inductance between the interwoven collection and induction coils, the induction coils 108 induce an opposing emf in the collection coils, which would increase energy required by the induction coils. Similarly, the induced current in the collection coils produces an opposing emf in the induction coils, which further decreases overall efficiency. This operation would typically not be something one of ordinary skill would intend, nor would one of ordinary skill typically invent a machine that violates known scientific principles as noted in (B).
(E) The level of predictability in the art
As noted in (C) above, given the use of induction and collection coils to provide “regenerative” functions and the description of back-emf effects associated therewith, as well as means to reduce such effects, the level of predictability in the art is high in this sense. But, it is not clear from the description what “errant magnetic fields” are or how they are collected at the same time the field coils propel the flywheel. Further, the description of an “increase” in “overall efficiency” by “circulation” of “unused magnetic energy” suggests a perpetual motion machine. These are predictable only in the sense that they are scientifically impossible since they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
The specification provides only vague direction. It is not clear, for instance, what the “excess energy” is that is allegedly converted into electricity and is sent back to the battery through an inverter per ¶[0025]. It is not clear in what sense the stator is “used to align interwoven field coils” (claim 1) or what “errant magnetic fields” are or how they are collected at the same time the stator field coils propel the flywheel. Presumably, current is induced in the collection coil/strand 110 when magnetic poles 102 of the gyroscope flywheel 100 pass teeth 112 in the manner of a DC generator. But, the timing of this operation with respect to the commutation of the induction coil/strands 108 by the microprocessor is not described at all, nor it is clear how or in what sense this functions to “increase overall efficiency” by “circulation” of “unused magnetic energy” as described in ¶[0006] & ¶[0024].
(G) The existence of working examples
No working examples are on record.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure
As noted in (B), the description of an “increase” in “overall efficiency” by “circulation” of “unused magnetic energy” in the invention suggests and encompasses a system where entropy decreases over time. This violates known laws of science, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Further, given the ambiguity of the description with respect to certain functions (E), the lack of direction provided (F) and the lack of working examples (G), the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure would be unreasonably high.
For these reasons, claims 1-5 lack enablement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the functional language “a stator used to align interwoven field coils…an armature that aligns permanent magnets to create rotation; and a plurality of interwoven electrically conductive field coils that propel the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields” is vague, indefinite language.
The stator “used to align interwoven field coils” is indefinite and not idiomatic. It is unclear how or in what sense the stator is “used” to “align interwoven field coils” since there is no specific structure claimed that relates to this use. It is also unclear what the claimed use “align interwoven field coils” means. Presumably this language refers to refers to structure of the stator 114 with teeth 112 individually wrapped with “circulatory” [sic] field coils 106 (Figs.1-2&4). The “circulatory” field coils comprise “two strands of copper twisted together in a double helix coil…Strand 108, the induction coil, receives energy to create magnetic fields and strand 110, collection coil, circulates unused magnetic energy that is converted back into electricity, to the batteries” (¶[0024]; Figs.3-4). “Energy from the battery is sent to the circulatory field coil's induction side 108 through a microprocessor controller while excess energy is converted into electricity and is sent back to the battery through an inverter” (¶[0025]; Fig.5).
Further, recitation “an armature that aligns permanent magnets to create rotation” is indefinite and not idiomatic. The language appears to refer to flywheel 100 with magnets 102. (¶[0020]; Fig.1). It is unclear how or in what sense the flywheel 100 “aligns” permanent magnets 102 “to create rotation”. Presumably this language refers to “the induction side of the circulatory field coil assembly 108 shown in FIGS.3-5 [which] create multi-phase electromagnetic fields that cause rotation of the flywheel governed by individual motor controllers, one controller per circulatory field coil” (¶[0021]).
Recitation “a plurality of interwoven electrically conductive field coils that propel the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields” is indefinite and not idiomatic. The function of “collecting errant magnetic fields” is indefinite because “errant magnetic fields” lack clear basis. The abstract and specification ¶[0006] & ¶[0024] teach the circulatory field coil system returns or circulates the “unused portion” of the electromagnetic fields or “unused magnetic energy” back to the power source. But these lack clear basis since it is unclear what is “unused”.
In claim 2, “rotational energy” and “to desired device” are vague and indefinite and lack structural context with respect to claim 1.
In claim 3, “the plurality of interwoven field coils are configured to create a motor that is its own generator” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the claimed structure produces or results in the alleged function.
In claim 4, “a leveraged drive that creates a circulatory system by operating as a generator and motor at the same time” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “leveraged drive” or “circulatory system” mean.
In claim 5, “a leveraged hubless drive configured to create high torque with magnetic energy created along its perimeter” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how or in what sense “magnetic energy” is “created along its perimeter.” Further, “high torque” is relative terminology without clear basis.
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.
Claims 1 & 3-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ny (US 10,432,079) in view of Pandya (US 10,084,365).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Ny teaches an “energy regenerative motor” [sic] (i.e., electrical energy generator brushless motor) 100 comprising:
a controller 114 for ingoing electrical energy (i.e., to energizer windings; Fig.3);
an inverter (not shown, rectifier built into charger 115) for outgoing electrical energy (i.e., from inducer windings);
a battery 113 configured to send and receive electrical energy (c.10:30; c.10:42-48; Fig.3);
a stator 13 “used to align…field coils” [sic] (i.e., stator comprises dual purpose windings 13a comprising energizer and inducer windings co-axially wound; Fig.1);
a plurality of permanent magnets 12a;
an armature (rotor) 12 that aligns permanent magnets to create rotation; and
a plurality of…electrically conductive field coils 15 & 16 that propel the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields (i.e., energizer windings 16 produce torque in permanent magnet rotor 12 & inducer windings 15 generate electrical energy; c.7:51-53; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
516
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
450
353
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ny differs only in that the field coils 15 & 16 are not “interwoven”.
But, in the same field of endeavor Pandya teaches a power converter operable as either a motor or generator including stator field electromagnets 141 comprising interwoven conductors 143a & 143b wound in a twisted bifilar or double helix manner around core 143c to provide desired electromagnetic characteristics such as the magnetic field strength and spatial field pattern (abstract; c.5:33-36; c.16:43-52; c.17:50-62; c.18:2-6; Fig.2).
PNG
media_image5.png
554
701
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to “interweave” the induction and collection coils of Ny since Pandya teaches this would have provided desired electromagnetic characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the interwoven field coils of the combination “create a motor that is its own generator” in the sense that Ny’s stator windings generate electrical energy and are connected to a load or to an energy storage system powering the control unit 114 (abstract; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Ny’s “leveraged” [sic] drive creates a “circulatory” [sic] system by operating as a generator and motor at the same time (c.5:28-30).
Claims 1 & 3-5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisenko et al. (WO 2017/030509) in view of Linares (US 10,523,074).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Fisenko teaches an “energy regenerative motor” [sic] (apparatus for energy recovering of a DC motor) comprising:
a controller (control/switching circuit) 6 for ingoing electrical energy (i.e., to excitation coil 1; Figs.2-3);
an inverter (energy recovery leg with rectifier D2) 8 for outgoing electrical energy (i.e., from induction coil 14; p.10; Fig.2);
a battery 7 configured to send and receive electrical energy (Figs.2-3);
a stator 9 “used to align…field coils” [sic] (i.e., stator comprises excitation and induction coils 1 & 14 co-axially wound; Fig.1);
a plurality of permanent magnets 4;
an armature (rotor) 3 that aligns permanent magnets to create rotation (Fig.1); and
a plurality of…electrically conductive field coils 1 & 14 that propel the armature while collecting errant magnetic fields (i.e., stator excitation coils are energized by electrical excitation pulses to produce force effects causing the rotor to deflect, p.2; self-induced (inverse) electro-motive voltage is taken off the inductance coils to the energy recovery circuit; p.4; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image6.png
492
322
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
627
290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fisenko differs only in that the field coils 1 & 14 are not “interwoven”.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Linares teaches an electrical energy conversion system in the form of an induction motor or generator including a stator with teeth (part of core 78) and interwove wires 46, 48, 50 each wound in a “braided” or “helical” manner (abstract; c.10:63-c.11:3; Figs.3A,5&9) in the manner of a “double helix”, to increase electrical output capability (c.1:25-29; c.7:11-28).
PNG
media_image8.png
489
229
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
483
146
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
489
250
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to interweave Fisenko’s induction and collection coils since Linares teaches this would have increased electrical output capability.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the interwoven field coils of the combination “create a motor that is its own generator” in the sense that Fisenko’s stator windings generate electrical energy to continually recover energy and recharge the accumulator (abstract; pp.2-3; claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Fisenko’s “leveraged” [sic] drive creates a “circulatory” [sic] system by operating as a generator and motor at the same time, i.e., the DC motor operates as a generator by continually recovers energy and recharges the accumulator (abstract; pp.2-3, claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the combination teaches a “leveraged hubless drive configured to create high torque with magnetic energy created along its perimeter” in the sense that Linares teaches an outer rotor with permanent magnets 18 that “create energy along its perimeter” [sic] (Fig.1).
Claim 2, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ny & Pandya or Fisenko & Linares as applied to claim 1, further in view of Czerniak (US 3,935,487).
The combinations do not further teach “a pulley mechanism to connect rotational energy to desired device” [sic].
But, Czerniak teaches a permanent magnet motor including an output shaft 11 rotated by a rotor assembly 17, wherein rotational mechanical power generated by the motor may be transmitted by suitable transmission means, typically a pulley 15 and a belt 16 or a gear box (not shown), to power various devices (c.2:42-65; Figs.1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Ny & Pandya or Fisenko & Linares with a pulley mechanism to connect rotational energy to desired device since Czerniak teaches this would have provided a transmission means whereby rotational mechanical power generated by the motor may have been transmitted to power various devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C Patel can be reached on 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834