DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 23 March 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 23 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 9 of the Remarks) alleges that the current title is “brief, technically accurate, and descriptive of the invention”. While the first two points are conceded, the title is clearly not deemed to be descriptive of the invention, as it gives no indication of the improvement made to the magnetic gears and rotors already well-known in the art. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the objection to the title is maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 9-10 of the Remarks) states that the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be withdrawn because the term “optionally” has been removed from the claims. Thus, said previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 10 of the Remarks) alleges that Powell does not disclose a flux shield that “is both aligned and spaced from a plurality of permanent magnets”. In supporting this premise, the argument merely repeats the same language without providing any further explanation or evidence. As such, the argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Powell are maintained.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (page 11 of the Remarks) alleges that Bower does not “cure the deficiencies of Powell”, apparently alleging that the flux barriers of Bower are not equivalent to the flux barriers of the present invention, but without providing any explanation or evidence in support of this allegation. The present invention discloses the flux barriers as made of soft-magnetic laminations (¶ 0034 of the specification) for directing eddy currents. Likewise, Bower discloses metal rings for creating “a closed circuit for eddy-currents” (page 3, lines 88-99). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Bower are maintained.
The Applicant’s fifth argument (page 11 of the Remarks) alleges that Bower does not disclose the flux barriers being spaced from the permanent magnets. In response to the Applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the flux barriers being spaced from the permanent magnets is disclosed by Powell. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 05 March 2026 was/were filed after mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Disclosure
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Magnetically Geared Apparatus and Rotor with Flux Shield.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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) 1, 3, 6, and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US 2018/0269770 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Powell”, in view of Bower (GB 675379 A), hereinafter referred to as “Bower”.
Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses a magnetically geared apparatus [400] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0107-0108) comprising:
a first mover [430] comprising a plurality of first permanent magnets [430m] (fig. 4; ¶ 0108, 0111);
a stator [410] (fig. 4; ¶ 0108-0109);
a second mover [420] (fig. 4; ¶ 0108, 0110); and
a flux shield [520,550] aligned with the plurality of first permanent magnets [430m] for attenuating magnetic flux (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0113-0114; 0118-0119),
wherein one of the stator [410] or the second mover [420] comprises a plurality of pole pieces [500] and is positioned between the first mover [430] and another of the stator [410] or the second mover [420] (fig. 4; ¶ 0108; the second mover comprises pole pieces disposed radially between the first mover and the stator),
PNG
media_image1.png
567
1204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first mover [430], the stator [410] and the second mover [420] are aligned in a first direction [580] (fig. 4; the first mover, the second mover, and the stator are aligned radially with one another), and
wherein the flux shield [520,550] is spaced from the plurality of pole pieces [500] in a second direction [570] perpendicular to the first direction [580] by a non-magnetic region [560] (fig. 5B; ¶ 0113-0114), thereby attenuating the magnetic flux in the second direction [570] (¶ 0118-0119).
Powell does not disclose that the flux shield [520,550] is spaced from the plurality of first permanent magnets [430m] in a second direction perpendicular [570] to the first direction [580] (i.e. Powell discloses the flux shields on the second mover rather than on the first mover).
Bower discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a first mover [37] and a second mover [41] magnetically coupled to one another (fig. 1, 15; page 2, lines 61-103) and having a flux shield [38] (fig. 15; page 3, lines 69-80), wherein the flux shield [38] is mounted adjacent to a plurality of first permanent magnets [4] of the first mover [37] in the axial direction (fig. 15; page 3, lines 69-99).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the axially spaced flux barriers of Powell on the first mover, rather than the second mover, as taught by Bower, in order to form a closed circuit for eddy currents from the magnets, thereby absorbing shock due to the damping action of the eddy currents (page 3, lines 88-99 of Bower).
Further, it has been held that merely rearranging the essential working parts of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the first mover [430], the stator [410] and the second mover [420] are concentrically arranged around a shaft (fig. 4; ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 6, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Bower further discloses that the first mover [37] comprises a permanent magnet support structure [36], and wherein the flux shield [38] is mechanically coupled to the permanent magnet support structure [36] (fig. 15; page 3, lines 69-80).
Regarding claim 8, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the non-magnetic region [560] is a non-magnetic, electrically insulating spacer (fig. 5; ¶ 0113-0114).
Regarding claim 9, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the non-magnetic region [560] comprises an air gap (fig. 5; ¶ 0113-0114).
Regarding claim 10, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the flux shield [520,550] comprises a conductor (fig. 5; ¶ 0113; “laminations of electrical steel” are conductive).
Regarding claim 11, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the flux shield [520,550] comprises an un-magnetized magnetizable material, and wherein the flux shield [520,550] comprises one of a laminate and a soft magnetic composite "SMC" (fig. 5; ¶ 0113; “laminations of electrical steel”).
Regarding claim 12, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the flux shield [520,550] comprises an annular ring (fig. 4; ¶ 0108), and wherein the flux shield [520,550] comprises a plurality of circumferential segments arranged to form the annular ring, the plurality of circumferential segments being circumferentially spaced from one another (fig. 4; ¶ 0108; circumferential segments 420 are combined with supports 421 to form an annular ring).
Regarding claim 13, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the another of the stator [410] and the second mover [420] comprises a plurality of second permanent magnets [450] (fig. 4; ¶ 0109).
Regarding claim 14, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the stator [410] comprises a plurality of windings [440], and the second mover [420] is located between the stator [410] and the first mover [430] and comprises the plurality of pole pieces [500] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0109, 0112).
Regarding claim 15, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus [400] of claim 14, as stated above, wherein the stator [410] further comprises a plurality of second permanent magnets [450] (fig. 4; ¶ 0109), and wherein the plurality of second permanent magnets [450] are arranged between the plurality of windings [440] and the second mover [420] (fig. 4).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell and Bower as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusase (US 2013/0221778 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kusase”.
Regarding claim 5, Powell, in view of Bower, discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first mover [430], the stator [410] and the second mover [430] are housed within a casing (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0107; “power train arrangements (not shown), for example in a hybrid electric vehicle” would impliedly, if not inherently, require the apparatus to be mounted within a casing/housing), and wherein the flux shield [38] is located between the plurality of first permanent magnets [37] and the casing (the combination relocates the shield to the axial ends of the first mover which, as stated above, would impliedly, if not inherently, be within a casing/housing).
Powell does not disclose the casing being made of metal.
Kusase discloses a magnetically geared apparatus [1] comprising a first mover [6], a second mover [8], a stator [9], and a flux shield [34,35] (fig. 1; ¶ 0033), wherein the first mover [6], the stator [9] and the second mover [8] are housed within a metal casing [2], and wherein the flux shield [34,35] is located between the {first mover} [6] and the metal casing [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the magnetically geared apparatus of Powell within a metal casing as taught by Kusase, in order to provide a strong and light weight housing that is not affected by the magnetic fields of the apparatus.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first mover, the stator and the second mover are arranged around a shaft and are axially aligned with one another, and
wherein one of the first mover and the second mover is mechanically coupled to the shaft; and
wherein the first mover, the stator and the second mover are housed within a metal casing; and
wherein the flux shield is located between the plurality of first permanent magnets and the metal casing.
Regarding claim 4, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 3, wherein the second mover comprises an electrically conductive pole piece support structure mechanically coupled to the shaft; and
wherein the flux shield is located between the plurality of first permanent magnets and the electrically conductive pole piece support structure, and
wherein the plurality of pole pieces are coupled to the electrically conductive pole piece support structure via an electrically insulating pole piece spacer, such that the plurality of pole pieces are axially spaced from the electrically conductive pole piece support structure by the electrically insulating pole piece spacer.
Regarding claim 17, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first permanent magnets are circumferentially arranged such that each of the plurality of first permanent magnets occupies a predefined arc length, and wherein the flux shield is axially spaced from the plurality of first permanent magnets by a distance that is between one tenth and one half of the predefined arc length.
While the prior art discloses various arrangements of flux shields arranged on the pole piece and permanent magnet rotors, it does not disclose the particular arrangements relative to the casing, the permanent magnets, and the pole pieces, or the ratio of the magnet arc length to the flux shield spacing distance recited above. Thus, the inventions recited in claims 2, 4, and 17, above, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Powell et al. (US 2019/0157962 A1) discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a stator with windings and permanent magnets, a first rotor with permanent magnets, and a second rotor with pole pieces.
Nakatsugawa et al. (US 2012/0194021 A1) discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a stator with permanent magnets, a first rotor with permanent magnets, and a second rotor with pole pieces, wherein flux shields are mounted at one end of each of the pole pieces.
Calverley et al. (US 2012/0097555 A1 discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a stator with windings and permanent magnets, a first rotor with permanent magnets, and a second rotor with pole pieces.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights