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 .
Note: In this Office Action, all the referred paragraph number(s) [xxxx] in the written specification (herein ‘spec’) of the present application is/are in the present application’s publication US 20240178726.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the following:
reference characters "402" (main rotor), as in para [0034], and "120" (RT rotor), as in para [0024]), have both been used to show the same subject matter, i.e., an radial inside core, as in Fig. 4.
reference characters "122" (RT stator), as in para [0024], and "404" (not in the spec), have both been used to show the same subject matter, i.e., an radial outside core, as in Fig. 4.
reference characters "120" (RT rotor), as in para [0024], and "502" (not in the spec), have both been used to show the same subject matter, i.e., an radial outside core, as in Fig. 5.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following formalities:
The spec, para [0024], with RT rotor 120 and a RT stator 122;
But, in para [0033], [0035] with the RT rotor 122 (“122” previously assigned to the RT stator);
But, in para [0033] with the RT stator 120 (“120” previously assigned to the RT rotor)
The spec, para [0025], with main rotor 110 and main stator 112;
But, in para [0028], [0032] with the main rotor 120 (“120” previously assigned to the RT rotor);
But, in para [0034], with the main stator 122 (“122” previously assigned to the RT stator);
The above are few examples of assigned pictorial ref numbers, each respectively is used for different subject matters. The applicant is required to provide all the appropriate corrections for the assigned ref number discrepancy issues in the spec, not just the above mentioned paragraphs thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8 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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8 are considered indefinite because these dependent claims respectively fail to further limit the distinctly claimed physical/structural subject matters as set forth in the independent claim 1 claiming a synchronous machine, i.e., a physical/structural device, instead of pointing out operational and/or controllable characteristics of the preceding claimed subject matters in claim 1.
For examples:
In claim 2, the RT rotor (120) is configured to have a low magnetizing susceptance and a low frequency to speed factor (k.sub.f).
The recited “a low magnetizing susceptance and a low frequency” are controllable characteristics, while “speed factor (k.sub.f)” is operational characteristic.
In claim 3, the RT stator (122) is configured to operate at a fixed frequency independent of a rotating speed of the RT rotor (120). Clearly claim 3 sets forth operational characteristics of the RT stator base on the RT rotor’s speed that is the RT rotor’s operational characteristic.
In claim 5, the RT stator (122) is configured to control magnetizing current in a voltage range. The limitations are controllably operational characteristics.
By the same token, claims 6 and 8 respectively set forth operational and/or controllable characteristics.
Thus, claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8 fail to further limit the distinctly claimed subject matters as set forth in the independent claim 1.
On the contrary, claim 4 furthers limit claim 1 by setting forth “the three-phase rectifier (124) is a poly-phase bridge diode rectifier”. Also, claim 9 furthers limit claim 1 by setting forth “the RT (108) is controlled via a three-phase full bridge inverter”. Clearly, claims 4 and 9 respectively properly furthers limit the distinctly claimed subject matters as set forth in the independent claim 1.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9914847 A1 (Pub. Date: 1999-03-25, hereinafter ‘WO’847) in view of US 7259492 (hereinafter ‘US’492).
WO’847 discloses a synchronous machine excited using a rotating transformer (36-37 in fig. 3, 46-47 in fig. 4, 500 in figs. 7-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WO’847 machine comprising:
a main motor (figs. 1A-4) comprising:
a main rotor (10 in fig. 1B, 20 in fig. 2, 48 figs. 3-4) co-axially mounted and positioned between the first end and the second end of the shaft (30), and having Direct Current (DC) field windings (13 fig. 1B, 32 figs. 3-4);
a main stator (1 fig. 1A, 49 figs. 3-4) co-axially assembled over the main rotor, said main stator having electrically coupled Alternating Current (AC) poly-phase distributed windings (figs. 1A and 3-4) and a first predefined number of poles;
a rotating transformer (RT) (figs. 3-4 and 7-9) co-axially mounted and positioned between the first end and the second end of the shaft (30), said RT having an RT rotor (37 in fig. 3, 47 in fig. 4) configured to be rotatably coupled on the second end of the shaft, said RT rotor including AC poly-phase distributed windings and having a second predefined number of poles; an RT stator co-axially assembled over the RT rotor, wherein the RT stator has AC poly-phase distributed windings and the second predefined number of poles; and
a three-phase rectifier, in form of a power processor (71), converts an AC current from the RT rotor to a DC current, and wherein the DC current from the three-phase rectifier is transmitted to the DC field windings of the main rotor in order to excite the synchronous machine.
WO’847 discloses the RT and rectifier are electronic RT and electronic rectifier; nonetheless, fig. 3 of WO’847 shows conceptually the RT with the rectifier are co-axially mounted on the shaft (30). The claimed invention broadly sets forth “RT” having RT stator and RT rotor, each with distributed windings, but not specifically set forth the RT stator and RT rotor having respectively physical cores and conductive wires for respective RT stator and RT rotor windings. Hence, the claimed RT and rectifier are read as the RT and the rectifier in the WO’847.
WO’847 substantially discloses the claimed machine, except for the following:
a housing having a first opening and a second opening; a first endcap configured to be attached to the first opening of the housing, wherein the first endcap is provided with an aperture for the first end of the shaft to support an external radial load; and a second endcap configured to be attached to the second opening of the housing, wherein the second endcap is provided with a groove configured to support the second end of the shaft and enable rotational movement of the shaft.
the RT rotor and the RT stator each has poly-phase distributed windings.
RE the limitations listed in item (A) herein, US’492, however, teaches an electric machine comprising a housing (H100) (see included fig. 1 with annotations) having a first opening and a second opening; a first endcap configured to be attached to the first opening of the housing, wherein the first endcap is provided with an aperture for the first end of the shaft to support an external radial load; and a second endcap configured to be attached to the second opening of the housing, wherein the second endcap is provided with a groove configured to support the second end of the shaft and enable rotational movement of the shaft.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
1041
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claim 7, US’492 teaches the electric machine comprising a first ball bearing (B100) coupled to the first end of the shaft and a second ball bearing (B100) coupled to the second end of the shaft, as shown in Fig. 1 the shaft has two axial ends, each with ball bearing B100 coupled thereto.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art machine by providing the housing and two end caps and bearings, as taught by US’492 and as in claims 1 and 7. Doing so would provide the machine means for mechanical protection, while supporting an external load and movement of the shaft.
RE the limitations listed in item (B) herein, WO’847 discloses the RT rotor and the RT stator, each having poly-phase windings (i.e., three-phase windings), but not distributed windings. Nonetheless, those skilled in the art would understand that configuring windings in a distribution manner or concentration manner is a matter of obvious engineering design choices because both distributed windings and concentrated windings are well-known in the art. Each type of distributed winding type and concentrated winding type has its own advantage and disadvantage. For non-limiting examples: distributed winding type can have larger number of teeth, and has a smoother, sinusoidal back-EMF as well as better heat dissipation, comparing to concentrated winding type, but require more space. On the other hand, concentrated winding type is a preferable choice for winding to produce a current of low voltage, and concentrated winding type use fewer, more compact coils, resulting in a simpler structure and more material efficiency, but produce a more trapezoidal back-EMF with higher harmonics and torque ripple.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art machine RT rotor’s and RT stator’s respective poly-phase windings to be AC poly-phase distributed windings. Doing so would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice based on particular industrial implementation of the machine.
RE claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to controllably set forth operational characteristics, as in claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8, for the prior art machine because it would be a matter of obvious engineering design choices to set forth the claimed operational characteristics based on output requirements of a particular industrial implementations of the prior art machine.
RE claim 4, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the prior art three-phase rectifier as a poly-phase bridge diode rectifier to operate at a frequency of the RT rotor because poly-phase bridge diode rectifier is well-known in the art.
RE claim 9, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the prior art by providing a three-phase full bridge inverter using a pulse width modulation (PWM) technique because three-phase full bridge inverter using PWM is well known in the art for controlling RT rotor.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2030. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 AM-6:00 PM or email: Tran.Nguyen@USPTO.GOV for initial communication.
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 highly 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 on 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.
/TRAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834