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 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 The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.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 1-5, 7-10, and 16 were rejected as being obvious over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey. Claim 6 was rejected as being obvious over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Imlach. Claims 12, 14-15, and 18-20 were rejected as being obvious over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Holstein. Claim 13 was rejected as being obvious over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey, Holstein, and Schoeb. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 13-15 and canceled claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of DE 10 2017 100 485 to Scholz.
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 1-5, 7-10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0127774 to Van Schepdael (cited by Applicant on 11/2/2023) in view of WIPO Publication No. 2006/022554 to Sandoey et al. (hereinafter Sandoey; provided by Applicant on 11/2/2023) and German Patent No. 10 2017 100 485 to Scholz.
Regarding claim 1, Van Schepdael teaches a generator for a watercraft (Paragraph [0001]), the device comprising:
a stator (FIG. 1, 12);
a rotor (FIG. 1, 9) which rotates relative to the stator about an axis of rotation (FIG. 1, 11) that is fixed in position relative to the stator, wherein the rotor is an impeller (Paragraph [0025]; a propeller is an impeller) and wherein the rotor is an internal rotor supported, at least during operation, on the stator in the axial direction by a first axial bearing means (FIG. 1, 5)
wherein the first axial bearing means has at least one first rotor magnet device (FGI. 1, 10, right side) arranged on the rotor to realize a first rotor magnetic field, and wherein the first axial bearing has at least one first stator magnet device (FIG. 1, 5) arranged on the stator to realize a first stator magnetic field, and realizes a first bearing force that, owing to the first rotor magnetic field and the first stator magnetic field, acts between the first rotor magnet device and the first stator magnet device and at least partially in the axial direction (Paragraph [0026]).
Van Schepdael does not teach the device being a drive device for driving a watercraft and at least one first hydrodynamic radial bearing means, by which, during operation, the rotor is supported on the stator in the radial direction and which has at least one first stator radial bearing element arranged on the stator, and has at least one first rotor radial bearing element arranged on the rotor, between which there is realized, at least during operation, a first radial interspace that is in fluid communication with an ambient space surrounding the stator.
However, Sandoey teaches a drive device for driving a watercraft (Page 1 lines 3-5) having a magnetic axial bearing (FIG. 1, 11).
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 device of Van Schepdael by incorporating it into the drive device of Sandoey for the drive device of Sandoey to benefit from the features of the device of Van Schepdael.
Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey does not teach at least one first hydrodynamic radial bearing means, by which, during operation, the rotor is supported on the stator in the radial direction and which has at least one first stator radial bearing element arranged on the stator, and has at least one first rotor radial bearing element arranged on the rotor, between which there is realized, at least during operation, a first radial interspace that is in fluid communication with an ambient space surrounding the stator.
However, Scholz teaches a hydrodynamic radial bearing means (FIG. 2, 11), by which, during operation, the rotor (FIG. 2, 2) being supported on the stator (FIG. 2, 3) in the radial direction and which has at least one first stator radial bearing element (FIG. 2, 11, portion touching stator 3) arranged on the stator, and has at least one first rotor radial bearing element (FIG. 2, 11, portion touching rotor 2) arranged on the rotor, between which, there is realized, at least during operation, a first radial interspace that is in fluid communication with an ambient space surrounding the stator (FIG. 2; 12, 26; Paragraph [0073]-[0076]).
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 drive device of Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey with the bearing of Scholz to provide a more passive lubrication method for the bearing (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1, wherein Van Schepdael further teaches the first axial bearing means realizing the first bearing force in such a way that the first rotor magnet device, at least during operation, is repelled from the first stator magnet device by the first bearing force (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1.
Van Schepdael does not teach the first rotor magnet device and/or the first stator magnet device, at least during operation, being at least partially magnetized in the axial direction.
However, Sandoey teaches a first rotor magnet device and a first stator magnet device being at least partially magnetized in the axial direction (Page 2 lines 10-16). 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 device of Van Schepdael with the axially magnetized magnet devices of Sandoey provides a larger repulsive magnetic force and more rigid bearing (Page 2 lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 4, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1, wherein Van Schepdael further teaches the first rotor magnet device and/or the first stator magnet device being realized by at least one permanent magnet (Paragraph [0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1.
Van Schepdael does not teach the first rotor magnet device and the first stator magnet device, at least during operation, being spaced at least substantially equidistant from the axis of rotation.
However, Sandoey teaches a first rotor magnet device (FIG. 1; 12, 18) and a first stator magnet device (FIG. 1; 13, 18) being spaced at least substantially equidistant from the axis of rotation (FIG. 1, 14).
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 device of Van Schepdael with the equidistant magnet devices of Sandoey to provide a more radially stable bearing configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1.
Van Schepdael does not teach a first axial interspace between the first stator magnet device and the first rotor magnet device being in fluid communication with an ambient space that at least partially surrounds the stator.
However, Sandoey teaches a first axial interspace (FIG. 1, between space a and middle of 15) between the first stator magnet device and the first rotor magnet device that is in fluid communication with an ambient space that at least partially surrounds the stator (FIG. 1, middle of 15).
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 device of Van Schepdael with the axial interspace of Sandoey to provide more channel space for water to flow through to assist in propelling the watercraft.
Regarding claim 8, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1, wherein Van Schepdael further teaches at least one second axial bearing means (FIG. 1, 4) by which the rotor, at least during operation, is supported on the stator in the axial direction, and which has at least one second rotor magnet device (FIG. 1, 10, left side) arranged on the rotor to realize a second rotor magnet field, and at least one second stator magnet device (FIG. 1, 4) arranged on the stator to realize a second stator magnetic field, and which realizes a second bearing force that, owing to the second rotor magnetic field and the second stator magnetic field, acts between the second rotor magnet device and the second stator magnet device, and that acts at least partially in the axial direction (Paragraph [0026]) and at least partially acts against the first bearing force (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 8, wherein Van Schepdael further teaches an electric motor (FIG. 1; 6, 7) being arranged at least in the axial direction at least partially between the first axial bearing means (FIG. 1, 5) and the second axial bearing means (FIG. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 10, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 8, wherein Van Schepdael further teaches the first bearing force realized or to be realized as a maximum by the first axial bearing means in the case of a reference distance between the first rotor magnet device and the first stator magnet device exceeding the second bearing force realized or to be realized as a maximum by the second axial bearing means in the case of the reference distance between the second rotor magnet device and the second stator magnet device (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first radial bearing means is arranged at least partially between the first or the second axial bearing means and the axis of rotation (Sandoey FIG. 1; 12, 18; Scholz FIG. 2, 11; the bearing of Scholz is located closer to the axis of rotation and would be located radially inward to the axial bearing of Sandoey).
Regarding claim 15, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1.
Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz does not teach at least one second hydrodynamic radial bearing means, by which the rotor, during operation, is supported on the stator in the radial direction, and which has a second stator radial bearing element arranged on the stator and a second rotor radial bearing element arranged on the rotor, realized between which, at least during operation, there is a second radial interspace, which is in fluid communication with an ambient space surrounding the stator.
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 drive device of Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz by duplicating the hydrodynamic radial bearing to increase the radial support of the rotor (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 16, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 5.
Van Schepdael does not teach the first stator magnet device and/or the first rotor magnet device being realized circumferentially around the axis of rotation.
However, Sandoey teaches the first stator magnet device and the first rotor magnet device being realized circumferentially around the axis of rotation (Page 3 lines 18-24).
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 device of Van Schepdael with the circumferential magnet device of Sandoey to have a greater magnet surface area to provide a greater repelling force and more rigid bearing.
Regarding claim 18, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the first radial bearing means, in a cross-section perpendicular to the axis of rotation, is arranged at least partially between the first or second axial bearing means and the axis of rotation (Sandoey FIG. 1; 12, 18; Scholz FIG. 2, 11; the bearing of Scholz is located closer to the axis of rotation and would be located radially inward to the axial bearing of Sandoey).
Regarding claim 19, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 15, wherein Scholz further teaches the second radial interspace being in fluid communication with the first radial interspace by a fluid channel realized between the stator and the rotor (Paragraph [0073]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 15, wherein Scholz further teaches the electric motor (FIG. 2; 2, 3) being arranged at least partially between the first radial bearing means (FIG. 2, 11, left side) and the second radial bearing means (FIG. 2, 11, right side) at least in the axial direction.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 11094420 to Tan et al. (hereinafter Tan).
Regarding claim 6, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1.
Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz does not teach the first axial bearing means having a stop element by which a capability of the rotor to shift axially relative to the stator and against the first bearing force is delimited in such a way that contact between the first rotor magnet device and the first stator magnet device is prevented.
However, Tan teaches an axial magnetic bearing having a stop element (FIG. 4; 27, 28) by which a capability of the rotor to shift axially relative to the stator and against the first bearing force is delimited in such a way that contact between the first rotor magnet device and the first stator magnet device is prevented.
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 device of Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz with the stop element of Tan to further ensure the proper axial alignment of the rotor relative to the stator.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,894,181 to Imlach.
Regarding claim 11, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 8.
Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz does not teach the second rotor magnet device and/or the second stator magnet device being realized by exactly one permanent magnet.
However, Imlach teaches an axial magnetic bearing (FIG. 3a, 34) comprising exactly one permanent magnet (FIG. 3a, 344).
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 device of Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz with the permanent magnet of Imlach as the permanent magnet provides a uniform magnetic field along a circumference of the magnet device.
Regarding claim 17, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey, Scholz, and Imlach teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 11, wherein Imlach further teaches the first rotor magnet and/or the first magnet device (FIG. 3a, 32) are/is realized by two permanent magnets (FIG. 3a; 324, 326), wherein the permanent magnets are of the same design.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,939,813 to Schoeb.
Regarding claim 13, Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz teaches the drive device as claimed in claim 1.
Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz does not teach that at least when the rotor is arranged centrally, the first radial interspace has, with respect to the axis of rotation, a radial extent of at least 0.3mm and/or at most 1.2mm.
However, Schoeb teaches a rotor (FIG. 2, 3) spaced from a stator (FIG. 2, 4) by a radial bearing (FIG. 2, 30a) with a radial interspace of about 1mm (Column 6 lines 34-37).
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 device of Van Schepdael in view of Sandoey and Scholz with the radial spacing of Schoeb to match the specified dimensioning of the respective intended use case of the device.
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