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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has cancelled claims 13-23, hence the remarks/arguments related to those claims are moot.
On page 6, applicant has argued about claim 24 and components of MGM (magnetic geared machine) and Vernier machine. The examiner, in the current rejection has not made 112 rejection on such recitation. The current claim 24 recites ‘configured to constitute,’ which merely states how the Applicant views a MGM and a Vernier machines.
Starting page 7 (at the bottom), page 8, 9 and 10, applicant has discussed the applied art of Ren (publication), and stated that the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner. Since most of the arguments are related to cancelled claims, the examiner will refrain from addressing the arguments.
On pages 11 and 12, the Applicant has discussed the prior art presented in figures 18A-18D. Applicant has argued about the performance of prior art presented in figure 18D, 1814 machine and the applicant’s invention, and seems to suggests that the applicant’s invention present high torque density. Unfortunately, the Applicant has not pointed out, which claim recites ‘high flux density’. On page 12, the applicant has argued about how the current invention differs from 1814 (prior art, fig. 18D) machine. The arguments appear to be irrelevant, as applicant has failed to point out, how the presented claims differs from the 1814 machine. Applicant has further argued about combination of Ren (publication) and Xie reference. Since the current rejection does not use both of these references, the arguments are moot.
Drawings
Figure 1, 18a-18d, 19a-19d, and 20a-20d should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. See Brief Description of the Drawings, paragraph [0050]-[0052] of published application.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
See figures 1-3, 5, 9a-9d, 10a, 10b, 12a, 17, 18a-18d, 19a-19d, 23a, 23b, 24a, 24b, 28a, 28b, and 29. All these figures are blurry and do not have reproduction quality.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24, line 3, ‘inner stator” should be changed too –an inner stator--.
Claim 24, line 15, ‘outer rotator’ should be changed to –outer rotor--.
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.
Claim 28 is 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.
Claim 28, the recitation ‘the at least one second winding is wound in the open slots of the inner stator teeth’ is not clear. If there is winding in the slot, can it still be considered ‘open’ slot?
For claim 29, the recitation ‘the inner stator teeth comprise open slot teeth for forming the open slots’ does not make sense.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Admitted Prior art figure 18d.
Regarding Claim 24, the admitted prior art instant figure 18d, discloses a flux modulation apparatus 1814 comprising:
a stator comprising outer stator teeth (fig. 18d) having at least one first winding 1842 arranged thereon and inner stator teeth (see notation of fig. 18d) comprises at least one second winding 1844 arranged thereon;
an outer rotor 1847 comprising a plurality of permanent magnets (no number given, see notation) alternating with a plurality of steel segments; and
an inner rotor 1848 about which the outer rotor is arranged,
wherein the at least one first winding, the outer rotor and the inner rotor are configured to constitute a magnetic-geared machine ([0148] of instant application publication), and the at least one second winding, the inner stator teeth and the outer rotor
wherein each of the magnetic-geared machine and the Vernier machine has flux modulation functionality, and
wherein the inner stator teeth are configured to form open slots to operate as a static flux modulator for the at least one second winding, the inner stator teeth and the outer rotor [rotator] to constitute the Vernier machine ([0149]).
Regarding Claim 25, the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (see notation in fig. 18d) are circumferentially magnetized and polarity of the plurality of permanent magnets alternates around the rotor.
Regarding Claim 26, the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein salient poles of the inner rotor (1848) provide the flux modulation functionality of the magnetic- geared machine.
Regarding Claim 27, the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner stator teeth provide the flux modulation functionality of the Vernier machine ([0149] of published application).
Regarding Claim 28, the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one second winding 1844 is wound in the open slots of the inner stator teeth.
Regarding Claim 29, the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner stator teeth comprise open slot (teeth for forming the open slots).
Regarding Claim 30 the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one first winding 1842 is decoupled from the at least one second winding 1844. Note that fig. 18d shows two separate windings.
Regarding Claim 31 the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein a pole-pair number of each first winding 18420differs from a pole-pair number of each second winding 1844.
Regarding Claim 32 the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner rotor 1848 and the outer rotor 1846 are connected to respective sets of wind turbine blades.
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art, instant figure 168d, in view of admitted prior art instant figure 1.
Regarding Claim 32 the admitted prior art, instant figure 18d, discloses the apparatus, with an inner rotor 1848 and an outer rotor 1846. However the admitted prior art of figure 18d, does not disclose wind turbine blades connected to the rotor. Admitted prior art instant figure 1, discloses a transmission connected to respective set of turbine blades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the magnetic transmission device of instant figures 18d and use with set of wind turbine blade as suggested by instant figure 1, so as to produce power. Use of magnetic transmission instead of mechanical transmission reduces the wear and tear on mechanical parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2009/103993 is cited for use of magnetic transmission for wind turbine applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TULSIDAS C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2098. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-3:00.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571 272 4483. 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.
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights