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 multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16, 18, and 25-26 were rejected as being anticipated by Gong. Claims 4 and 15 were rejected as being obvious over Gong. Claims 19-22 were rejected as being obvious over Gong in view of Holenstein. Claim 23 was rejected as being obvious over Gong in view of Holenstein and Jiang. The Applicant amended claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 U.S. Patent No. 6,359,357 to Blumenstock.
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, 9-11, 14-16, 18, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. 213575191 to Gong et al. (hereinafter Gong) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 6,359,357 to Blumenstock.
Regarding claim 1, Gong teaches a magnetic levitation device (Abstract), comprising:
a rotor (FIG. 7); and
a stator (FIG. 6), wherein the stator is arranged around the rotor, the stator comprises a permanent magnet stator body (FIG. 6, 11), a first magnetic stator substrate (FIG. 6; 51, 21) and a second magnetic stator substrate (FIG. 6; 61, 31), and the permanent magnet stator body is sandwiched between the first magnetic stator substrate and the second magnetic stator substrate in an axial direction of the stator (FIG. 8; 51, 21, 11, 31, 61), wherein,
the first magnetic stator substrate comprises a first substrate body (FIG. 6; 51, 21), as well as a first protrusion (FIG. 6, 511) and a second protrusion (FIG. 6, 211) which are protruding from the first substrate body towards the rotor, wherein a first magnetic levitation coil (FIG. 6, 52) is wound on the first protrusion, and a second magnetic levitation coil (FIG. 6, 22) is wound on the second protrusion, and the first protrusion is higher than the second protrusion in the axial direction of the stator (FIG. 8; 51, 21) so that the first protrusion and the first magnetic levitation coil apply an upward force in the axial direction on the rotor (Paragraph [0075]) and the second protrusion and the second magnetic levitation coil apply a downward force in the axial direction on the rotor (Paragraph [0086]).
Gong does not teach the first protrusion and the second protrusion being arranged on a same first substrate body.
However, Blumenstock teaches a magnetic bearing with a first protrusion (FIG. 8, 36A) and a second protrusion (FIG. 8, 36B) being arranged on a same first substrate body (FIG. 8, 26A).
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 magnetic levitation device of Gong with the teachings of Blumenstock to incorporate the first and second protrusions on the same substrate body to simplify the construction of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches:
the first protrusion is higher than the second protrusion in the axial direction of the stator (FIG. 6; 511, 211), comprising:
in the axial direction of the stator, an upper surface of the first protrusion is higher than an upper surface of the second protrusion, and a lower surface of the first protrusion is higher than the upper surface of the second protrusion (FIG. 8; 51, 21).
Regarding claim 3, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches
the rotor comprises a rotor body (FIG. 7), as well as a first flange (FIG. 7, 43) and a second flange (FIG. 7, 44) protruding from the rotor body towards the stator, wherein the first flange corresponds to the first magnetic stator substrate, and the second flange corresponds to the second magnetic stator substrate;
under an initial levitation state of the rotor, a centerline of the first flange is substantially flush with a centerline of a distance between an upper surface of the first protrusion and a lower surface of the second protrusion in the axial direction of the stator (Paragraph [0087]);
in the case where the upward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the first protrusion and the first magnetic levitation coil is greater than the downward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the second protrusion and the second magnetic levitation coil, the rotor moves upward in the axial direction of the stator from the initial levitation state (Paragraph [0087]); and
in the case where the upward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the first protrusion and the first magnetic levitation coil is smaller than the downward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the second protrusion and the second magnetic levitation coil, the rotor moves downward in the axial direction of the stator from the initial levitation state (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 4, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 3.
Gong in view of Blumenstock does not teach in the axial direction of the stator, a thickness of each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion not being smaller than a thickness of the first flange.
However, it would have been obvious to modify the magnetic levitation device of Gong in view of Blumenstock by changing the relative size of the thickness of the protrusion and the thickness of the first flange as a matter of design choice in order to increase the stability of the magnetic levitation device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 5, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches the first magnetic stator substrate comprises a plurality of first protrusions (FIG. 6, 511) and a plurality of second protrusions (FIG. 6, 211); and the first substrate body has a circular inner edge (FIG. 8; inner surface of 10), and the plurality of first protrusions and the plurality of second protrusions are arranged along a circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 8; 51, 21).
Regarding claim 7, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 5, wherein Gong further teaches one second protrusion is arranged between two adjacent first protrusions, and one first protrusion is arranged between two adjacent second protrusions (Paragraph [0070]);
the total number of the plurality of first protrusions is equal to the total number of the plurality of second protrusions (FIG. 6; 511, 211); and
the plurality of first protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 511), and the plurality of second protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 211).
Regarding claim 9, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 5, wherein Gong further teaches one group of second protrusions is arranged between two adjacent first protrusions, and one first protrusion is arranged between two adjacent groups of second protrusions (Paragraph [0070]);
one group of second protrusions comprises N second protrusions, where N ≥ 2 (Paragraph [0064]);
the total number of the second protrusions is N times that of the first protrusions (Paragraph [0064]); and
the plurality of first protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 511), and a plurality of groups of second protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 211).
Regarding claim 10, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 5, wherein Gong further teaches
one group of first protrusions is arranged between two adjacent second protrusions, and one second protrusion is arranged between two adjacent groups of first protrusions (Paragraph [0070]);
one group of first protrusions comprises M first protrusions, wherein M ≥ 2 (Paragraph [0069]);
the total number of the first protrusions is M times that of the second protrusions (Paragraph [0069]); and
a plurality of groups of first protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 511), and the plurality of second protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 211).
Regarding claim 11, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 5, wherein Gong further teaches
one group of second protrusions is arranged between two adjacent groups of first protrusions, and one group of first protrusions is arranged between two adjacent groups of second protrusions (Paragraph [0070]);
one group of second protrusions comprises N second protrusions, where N ≥ 2 (Paragraph [0064]), and one group of first protrusions comprises M first protrusions, where M ≥ 2 (Paragraph [0069]), and N is equal to or different from M; and
a plurality of groups of first protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 511), and a plurality of groups of second protrusions are uniformly arranged along the circumferential direction of the circular inner edge (FIG. 6, 211).
Regarding claim 14, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches
the first magnetic stator substrate comprises a first sub-substrate (FIG. 6, 51) and a second sub-substrate (FIG. 6, 21), the first sub-substrate comprises the first protrusion (FIG. 6, 511), and the second sub-substrate comprises the second protrusion (FIG. 6, 211), and
the first substrate is stacked on the second sub-substrate in the axial direction of the stator so that the first protrusion is higher than the second protrusion in the axial direction of the stator (FIG. 8; 51, 21).
Regarding claim 15, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 14.
Gong in view of Blumenstock does not teach a shape and a size of the first sub-substrate comprising the first protrusion being the same as a shape and a size of the second sub-substrate comprising the second protrusion, respectively.
However, it would have been obvious to modify the magnetic levitation device of Gong in view of Blumenstock by changing the relative shape and size of the first and second sub-substrates comprising the first and second protrusions in order to increase the stability of the magnetic levitation device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 16, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches the first substrate body has a circular inner edge (FIG. 8, inner portion of 10); an inner edge of the first protrusion is a first arc (FIG. 6, 511), and an inner edge of the second protrusion is a second arc (FIG. 6, 211), wherein the first arc is part of a first circle and the second arc is a part of a second circle; and the first circle and the second circle are both concentric circles of the circular inner edge (FIG. 8; 51, 21).
Regarding claim 18, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches the second magnetic stator substrate comprises a second substrate body (FIG. 6; 61, 31) and a plurality of teeth (FIG. 6; 611, 311) protruding from the second substrate body towards the rotor, and each of the plurality of teeth is wound with a magnetic rotating coil (FIG. 6; 62, 32).
Regarding claim 25, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches a rotor position adjusting method for adjusting a position of the rotor of the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1 in the axial direction of the stator, wherein Gong further teaches the rotor position adjusting method comprising:
applying a first current to the first magnetic levitation coil and applying a second current to the second magnetic levitation coil (Paragraph [0004]);
controlling the first current to control a magnitude of the upward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the first protrusion and the first magnetic levitation coil (Paragraph [0075]); and
controlling the second current to control a magnitude of the downward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the second protrusion and the second magnetic levitation coil (Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 26, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the rotor position adjusting method according to claim 25, wherein Gong further teaches:
increasing the first current and/or decreasing the second current, so that the upward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the first protrusion and the first magnetic levitation coil is greater than the downward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the second protrusion and the second magnetic levitation coil, and the rotor moves upward in the axial direction of the stator under an upward resultant force (Paragraph [0075]; [0086]); and
decreasing the first current and/or increasing the second current, so that the upward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the first protrusion and the first magnetic levitation coil is smaller than the downward force in the axial direction applied on the rotor by the second protrusion and the second magnetic levitation coil, and the rotor moves downward in the axial direction of the stator under a downward resultant force (Paragraph [0075]; [0086]).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Blumenstock and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0302145 to Holenstein et al. (hereinafter Holenstein).
Regarding claim 19, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 18.
Gong in view of Blumenstock does not teach an additional levitation coil being wound on the second substrate body, and the additional magnetic levitation coil being farther away from the rotor than the magnetic rotating coil.
However, Holenstein teaches a magnetic suspension device with an additional coil (FIG. 14, 62) wound on the stator body, the additional coil being farther away from the rotor than a magnetic rotating coil (FIG. 14, 63).
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 magnetic levitation device of Gong in view of Blumenstock with the additional coil of Holenstein to provide greater control of the positioning of the rotor (Paragraph [0142]-[0145]).
Regarding claim 20, Gong in view of Blumenstock and Holenstein teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 19, wherein Gong further teaches the second magnetic stator substrate further comprising a third protrusion (FIG. 6, 611) and a fourth protrusion (FIG. 6, 311) which are protruding from the second substrate body towards the rotor, wherein a third magnetic levitation coil (FIG. 6, 62) is wound on the third protrusion, and a fourth magnetic levitation coil (FIG. 6, 32) is wound on the fourth protrusion, and the third magnetic levitation coil and the fourth magnetic levitation coil are used as the additional magnetic levitation coil, and the third protrusion is higher than the fourth protrusion in the axial direction of the stator (FIG. 8; 611, 311), so that the third protrusion and the third levitation coil apply an upward force in the axial direction on the rotor (Paragraph [0075]) while the fourth protrusion and the fourth magnetic levitation coil apply a downward force in the axial direction on the rotor (Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 21, Gong in view of Blumenstock teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1, wherein Gong further teaches the first magnetic stator substrate comprises a plurality of teeth FIG. 6; 511, 211) protruding from the first substrate body towards the rotor.
Gong in view of Blumenstock does not teach each of the plurality of teeth being wound with an additional magnetic rotating coil, and the first magnetic levitation coil and the second magnetic levitation coil being both farther away from the rotor than the additional magnetic rotating coil.
However, Holenstein teaches a magnetic suspension device with an additional coil (FIG. 14, 63) wound on the stator body, the first magnetic levitation coil and the second magnetic levitation coil being both farther away from the rotor than a magnetic rotating coil (FIG. 14, 62).
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 magnetic levitation device of Gong in view of Blumenstock with the additional coil of Holenstein to provide greater control of the positioning of the rotor (Paragraph [0142]-[0145]).
Regarding claim 22, Gong in view of Blumenstock and Holenstein teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 21, wherein Gong further teaches an inner edge of the first protrusion and an inner edge of the second protrusion being respectively provided with a part of the plurality of teeth (FIG. 8; 51, 21).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Blumenstock and Holenstein and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 108092446 to Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 23, Gong in view of Blumenstock and Holenstein teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 21, wherein Gong further teaches the first magnetic stator substrate comprising a first sub-substrate (FIG. 6, 51) and a second sub-substrate (FIG. 6, 21), wherein the first sub-substrate comprises the first protrusion (FIG. 6, 511) and the second sub-substrate comprises the second protrusion (FIG. 6, 211), the first sub-substrate being stacked on the second sub-substrate in the axial direction of the stator so that the first protrusion is higher than the second protrusion in the axial direction of the stator (FIG. 8; 51, 21).
Gong in view of Blumenstock and Holenstein does not teach a third sub-substrate, the third sub-substrate comprising the plurality of teeth, the third sub-substrate being sandwiched between the first sub-substrate and the second sub-substrate in the axial direction of the stator.
However, Jiang teaches a magnetic levitation device with a third sub-substrate (FIG. 1, 2) comprising a plurality of teeth (FIG. 1, 22) being sandwiched between a first sub-substrate (FIG. 1, 4, left) and a second sub-substrate (FIG. 1, 4, right).
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 magnetic levitation device of Gong in view of Blumenstock and Holenstein with the third sub-substrate of Jiang to provide even further magnetic stability control for the magnetic levitation 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
Prosecution Insights