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 20240283346.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the spec, while being enabling for the stator, as the magnetic-gear machine component being arranged concentrically with the outer rotor 116, as the Vernier machine component, does not reasonably provide enablement for outer rotor 116, as the magnetic-gear machine component being arranged concentrically with the outer rotor 116 itself, as the Vernier machine component.
In other words, claim 1 sets forth (emphasis added): “An apparatus comprising: a magnetic-geared machine component; and a Vernier machine component; wherein the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with the Vernier machine component; and wherein each of the magnetic-geared machine component and the Vernier machine component have flux modulation functionality”
According to the spec, para [0088]-[0089] and [0133]:
The magnetic-geared machine part 102 comprises: the stator with the first winding 106, the outer rotor 116, and the inner rotor 114. These are components of the magnetic-geared machine part 102.
The Vernier machine part 104 comprises: the stator with the second winding 110, and the outer rotor 116. These are components of the Vernier machine part 104.
Both the magnetic-gear machine and the Vernier machine respectively comprise the same component that is outer rotor 116. Thus, one single component, i.e., the outer rotor 116 being both as the magnetic-gear machine component and as the Vernier machine component, is not able concentrically arranged with itself, as set forth in claim 1 as the limitations “the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with the Vernier machine component”.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to configure the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 13-23 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.
In claim 1, “An apparatus comprising: a magnetic-geared machine component; and a Vernier machine component; wherein the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with the Vernier machine component” is indefinite because the claimed language is written so broad that it is unclear what is so-called “a magnetic-geared machine component” and what is so-called “a Vernier machine component” that are arranged in a concentrically manner, while the outer rotor 116 is the single component that is being the component of both the magnetic-geared PM machine 102 and Vernier PM machine 104. Thus, the same outer rotor 116 is disclosed as both “a magnetic-geared machine component” and “a Vernier machine component”, but the outer rotor 116 cannot be arranged concentrically with itself as set forth by the limitations “the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with the Vernier machine component”.
In claim 14, “An apparatus according to claim 13, comprising: a stator comprising an outer stator that comprises outer stator teeth having at least one first winding arranged thereon, and an inner stator that comprises inner stator teeth having at least one second winding arranged thereon; and a rotor comprising an outer rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets alternating with a plurality of steel segments, and an inner rotor about which the outer rotor is arranged” is indefinite. Because claim 14 depends from claim 13, it is unclear how do the claimed stator, outer rotor and inner rotor, in claim 14, physically and operationally relate to the “the magnetic-geared machine component” and “the Vernier machine component” in claim 1. Also, “An apparatus according to claim 13” is not set forth with established antecedent basis as introduced in the independent claim 13.
In claim 16, “the magnetic-geared machine component comprises the at least one first winding, the plurality of permanent magnets of the outer rotor, and the inner rotor; and wherein the Vernier machine component comprises the at least one second winding, the inner stator teeth, and the outer rotor” is indefinite because the magnetic-geared machine component is set to comprises the plurality of permanent magnets (PMs) of the outer rotor, while the Vernier machine component comprises the outer rotor, while the outer rotor comprises both the permanent magnets (PMs) and the steel segments. How can the magnetic-geared machine component comprises only the PMs of the outer rotor, while the outer rotor is disclosed as a single component is formed by PMs and steel segments united as a whole structure? Should the PMs of the outer rotor operationally function as elements of the magnetic-gear machine part?
In light of the spec, claims 13-16, are understood as an apparatus comprising: a magnetic-geared machine component; and a Vernier machine component; wherein the magnetic-geared machine component comprises a stator first winding, an outer rotor and an inner rotor; wherein Vernier machine component comprises a stator second winding and the outer rotor, wherein the outer rotor has a plurality of permanent magnets that operationally function as magnetically operational elements of the magnetic-geared machine component; wherein at least part of the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with at least part of the Vernier machine component.
By the same reason, in claim 24, “the at least one first winding, the plurality of permanent magnets and the inner rotor form a magnetic-geared machine component” is indefinite because claim 24 sets forth the outer rotor comprising a plurality of permanent magnets alternating with a plurality of steel segments. How can the magnetic-geared machine component comprises only the PMs of the outer rotor, while the outer rotor is disclosed as a single component is formed by PMs and steel segments united as a whole structure?
In light of the spec, it is understood as the outer rotor has a plurality of permanent magnets that operationally function as magnetically operational elements of the magnetic-geared machine component.
In claims 26-32, “an apparatus” is indefinite because it is not set forth with established antecedent basis as introduced in the independent claim 24.
Other claims included herein due to the dependencies from the above rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15, as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Ren et al, “A Brushless Dual-Mechanical-Port Dual-Electrical-Port Machine With Spoke Array Magnets In Flux Modulator” (IEEE 18 May 2017, submitted in the IDS, herein after ‘Ren”).
Ren discloses an apparatus (see the above included Figs. 1(b)and 2(b)) comprising: a magnetic-geared machine component; and a Vernier machine component;
PNG
media_image1.png
350
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the magnetic-geared machine component comprises: a stator that includes outer teeth having at least one first winding (i.e., main teeth with regular winding, see the above included Figs. 1(b), 2(b) and page. 1 right column), an inner rotor and at least part of an outer rotor;
wherein the Vernier machine component comprises: the stator that includes inner teeth having at least one second winding (i.e., auxiliary teeth with modulation winding, see the above included Figs. 1(b), 2(b) and page. 1 right column), and the outer rotor;
wherein at least part of the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with at least part of the Vernier machine component (i.e., see Figs. 1(b) and 2(b) showing the stator’s outer/main teeth with first winding arranged concentrically with the stator’s inner/auxiliary teeth with second winding);
each of the magnetic-geared machine component and the Vernier machine component have flux modulation functionality (see Figs. 8 and 10);
RE claim 14, Ren discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, comprising: the stator comprising an outer stator that comprises outer stator teeth having at least one first winding arranged thereon (i.e., the stator with main teeth having regular winding, see the above included Figs. 1(b), 2(b) and page. 1 right column)), and an inner stator that comprises inner stator teeth having at least one second winding arranged thereon (i.e., the stator with auxiliary teeth with modulation winding, see the above included Figs. 1(b), 2(b) and page. 1 right column); and a rotor comprising an outer rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets alternating with a plurality of steel segments, and an inner rotor about which the outer rotor is arranged.
RE claim 15, Ren discloses the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of permanent magnets are circumferentially magnetized and polarity of the plurality of permanent magnets alternates around the rotor (see Fig. 1(b)).
Claims 13-15, as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as fully anticipated by Xie et al (CN 109921591 A, submitted in the IDS, herein ‘Xie’).
Xie discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a magnetic-geared machine component; and a Vernier machine component;
PNG
media_image3.png
580
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the magnetic-geared machine component comprises: a stator [1] that includes outer teeth having at least one first winding, an inner rotor [3] and at least part of an outer rotor [2];
wherein the Vernier machine component comprises: the stator that includes inner teeth having at least one second winding, and the outer rotor [2];
wherein at least part of the magnetic-geared machine component is arranged concentrically with at least part of the Vernier machine component;
each of the magnetic-geared machine component and the Vernier machine component have flux modulation functionality (see abstract);
See the above included Fig. 1 of Xie for the following claims:
RE claim 14, Xie discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, comprising: the stator comprising an outer stator that comprises outer stator teeth having at least one first winding arranged thereon, and an inner stator that comprises inner stator teeth having at least one second winding arranged thereon; and a rotor comprising an outer rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets alternating with a plurality of steel segments, and an inner rotor about which the outer rotor is arranged.
RE claim 15, Xie discloses the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of permanent magnets are circumferentially magnetized and polarity of the plurality of permanent magnets alternates around the rotor (see the arrows indicating polarities of the PMs in the above included Fig. 1 and Fig. 3).
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 16, 18-25 and 27-32, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren.
RE claims 16/14 and 24, Ren substantially discloses the apparatus, except for the plurality of the permanent magnets (PMs) of the outer rotor operationally function as element of the magnetic gear machine component, instead of the plurality of steel segments as element of the magnetic gear machine component of the Ren apparatus. However, Ren discloses: (1) the magnetic-geared machine component comprises: the stator that includes outer/main teeth having at least one first/regular winding, the inner rotor and the outer rotor; and (2) the outer rotor is formed by a plurality of permanent magnets (PMs) alternating with a plurality of steel segments. Clearly the physical structure of the Ren prior art apparatus is identical to the claimed apparatus; therefore, selecting the PMs of the outer rotor to operationally function as elements of the magnetic-gear machine component, instead of the plurality of steel segments, is a matter of obvious engineering design choice. The PMs would be reliable steady permanently magnet element of the magnetic-gear machine component, while the steel segments would be controllable magnetic element thereof. Thus, obviously based on a particular industrial implementation of the apparatus, to select either PMs or steel segments to operational function as element of the magnetic-gear machine component.
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 apparatus by selecting the PMs of the outer rotor to operational function as element of the magnetic-gear machine component. Doing so would provide the magnetic-gear machine component with a reliable steady magnet element; also, such selection would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice for a suitable industrial implementation of the apparatus.
RE claims 18/14 and 27/24, Ren discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner stator teeth provide the flux modulation functionality of the Vernier machine component (see Fig. 6(b)).
RE claims 19/18, 20/14, 28/27 and 29/24, Ren discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner stator comprises inner stator slots that are open slots; or in other words, the inner stator teeth comprise open slot teeth (see Figs. 1(b) and 2(b)).
RE claims 21/14 and 30/24, Ren discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one first/regular winding is decoupled from the at least one second/auxiliary winding (see the written description, included above included).
RE claims 22/21 and 31/30, Ren discloses the apparatus, wherein a pole-pair number of each first winding differs from a pole-pair number of each second winding (see Table II).
RE claims 23/14 and 32/24, 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 apparatus by configuring the inner rotor and the outer rotor are connected to respective sets of wind turbine blades. Doing so would require only ordinary knowledge and necessary mechanical skill in the art to enable the apparatus to operationally incorporate with the turbine as one of various industrial implementations of the apparatus.
Claims 16-20, 23-25, 26-29, and 32, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie.
RE claims 16/14 and 24, Xie substantially discloses the apparatus, except for the plurality of the permanent magnets (PMs) of the outer rotor operationally function as element of the magnetic gear machine component, instead of the plurality of steel segments as element of the magnetic gear machine component of the Xie apparatus. However, Xie discloses: (1) the magnetic-geared machine component comprises: the stator that includes outer/main teeth having at least one first/regular winding, the inner rotor and the outer rotor; and (2) the outer rotor is formed by a plurality of permanent magnets (PMs) alternating with a plurality of steel segments. Clearly the physical structure of the Xie prior art apparatus is identical to the claimed apparatus; therefore, selecting the PMs of the outer rotor to operationally function as elements of the magnetic-gear machine component, instead of the plurality of steel segments, is a matter of obvious engineering design choice. The PMs would be reliable steady permanently magnet element of the magnetic-gear machine component, while the steel segments would be controllable magnetic element thereof. Thus, obviously based on a particular industrial implementation of the apparatus, to select either PMs or steel segments to operational function as element of the magnetic-gear machine component.
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 apparatus by selecting the PMs of the outer rotor to operational function as element of the magnetic-gear machine component. Doing so would provide the magnetic-gear machine component with a reliable steady magnet element; also, such selection would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice for a suitable industrial implementation of the apparatus.
RE claims 17/14 and 26/24, Xie discloses the apparatus, wherein salient poles of the inner rotor provide the flux modulation functionality of the magnetic-geared machine component (see para [0055]).
RE claims 18/14 and 27/24, Xie discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner stator teeth provide the flux modulation functionality of the Vernier machine component (see para [0008]-[0010] and Figs. 1-4).
RE claims 19/18, 20/14, 28/27 and 29/24, Xie discloses the apparatus, wherein the inner stator comprises inner stator slots that are open slots; or in other words, the inner stator teeth comprise open slot teeth (see Fig 1).
RE claims 23/14 and 32/24, 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 apparatus by configuring the inner rotor and the outer rotor are connected to respective sets of wind turbine blades. Doing so would require only ordinary knowledge and necessary mechanical skill in the art to enable the apparatus to operationally incorporate with the turbine as one of various industrial implementations of the apparatus.
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