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 drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to a feature of claim 28 not being depicted and including a reference character not mentioned in the description. The Applicant cancelled claim 28 and amended the specification with relation to the drawings, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification and abstract were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the specification and abstract to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claims 16, 19, and 25-27 were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the claims to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §112:
Claim 24 was rejected as being of improper dependent form. The Applicant amended claim 24 to correct its dependency, therefore the rejection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claim 15 was rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne. Claim 16 was rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne and Evans. Claim 17 was rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne, Evans, and Seguchi. Claims 18 and 20 were rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne and Mitsubishi. Claims 19 and 21 were rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne, Mitsubishi, and Lim. Claims 22-23 were rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne, Hagedorn, and Osanai. Claim 25 was rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne and Toesca. Claims 26-27 were rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne and Huang. Claim 28 was rejected as being obvious over Mipo in view of Lambourne, Huang, and Sabol. The Applicant amended claims 15 and 25 and cancelled claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, filed 2/9/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 15 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Chinese Patent No. 112953154 to Huang et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 25 lines 9-10 the phrase “the shielding structure a substantially planar figure of a substantially planar figure.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2019/122737 to Mipo et al. (hereinafter Mipo; provided by Applicant on 12/20/2023) in view of Chinese Patent No. 112953154 to Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang; provided by Applicant on 12/20/2023) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0169945 to Lambourne et al. (hereinafter Lambourne)
Regarding claim 15, Mipo teaches an electric current generation apparatus comprising an armature element (FIG. 1, 11) supporting one or more electrical windings (FIG. 1, 101) or conductors, suitably arranged in a magnetic field generated by an inductor (FIG. 1, 12),
wherein, in operation, said armature element is fixed and is maintained static (Paragraph [0019]) with respect to the inductor and in that it comprises a shielding structure (FIG. 1, 20) supporting a plurality of sectors (FIG. 1, 21) with the function of a flux concentrator (Paragraph [0027]-[0028]),
characterized in that said sectors with flux concentrating function are made up of an alloy of nickel and iron (Paragraph [0077]) and in that said shielding structure is set to rotate or oscillate to cause a change in the magnetic field and therefore in the flux concatenated to said one or more windings or conductors of the armature element (Paragraph [0027]).
Mipo does not teach a shielding structure with a plurality of sectors with the function of a magnetic shield in that the sectors of the shielding structure shield sectors of the armature from the magnetic field whenever the sectors of the shielding structure cover the sectors of the armature, and the alloy containing also molybdenum, carbon, silicon, manganese, and having a thickness that varies between 0.03 mm and 3 mm. However, Huang teaches an oscillating shielding structure (FIG. 2, 3) with a plurality of sectors with the function of a magnetic shield (FIG. 2, 32) in that the sectors of the shielding structure shield sectors of the armature from the magnetic field whenever the sectors of the shielding structure cover the sectors of the armature (Paragraph [0029]-[0030]).
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo with the magnetic shielding of Huang to further direct and control the magnetic flux.
Mipo in view of Huang does not teach the alloy containing also molybdenum, carbon, silicon, manganese, and having a thickness that varies between 0.03 mm and 3 mm.
However, Lambourne teaches a magnetic steel alloy material containing molybdenum, carbon, silicon, and manganese (Paragraph [0035]).
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo with the alloy of Lambourne due to the other elements to help increase the magnetic stability of the alloy.
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach the thickness of the sector varying between 0.05mm and 3mm.
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne by changing the thickness of the sector as a matter of design choice and optimizing the current generation by varying the thickness of the sector (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 26, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 15, wherein Huang further teaches:
the armature element having the shape of a cylinder (FIG. 1, 1), in which a plurality of windings or conductors sectors (FIG. 1, 14) are circumferentially arranged on one or more planes perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder, the armature being coaxial to a hollow cylinder (FIG. 1, 2) having the function of an inductor, which carries circumferentially a plurality of induction elements (FIG. 1; 22, 23) provided on one or more planes perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder and arranged in such a manner that each of them is located at a respective winding of the armature element; and
said shielding structure (FIG. 1, 3) supporting a plurality of shielding sectors (FIG. 2; 31, 32) is represented by a hollow cylinder placed coaxially in the air gap between the armature element and the inductor element, wherein the shielding structure in operation is in translatory oscillation along the axis of said coaxial cylinders (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 27, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 15, wherein Huang further teaches:
the armature element having the shape of a hollow solid geometric figure (FIG. 1, 1), in which a plurality of windings or conductor sectors (FIG. 1, 14) are arranged perimetrically on one or more planes perpendicular to the axis of the hollow geometric figure, the armature element being coaxial to a hollow geometric figure with the function of an inductor (FIG. 1, 2) which has the same geometric shape as the inductor element and which carries perimetrically a plurality of induction elements (FIG. 1; 22, 23) provided on one or more planes perpendicular to the axis of the solid figure and arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective winding of the armature element; and
said shielding structure (FIG. 2, 3) being represented by a hollow geometric figure coaxially arranged in the air gap between the armature element and the inductor element, wherein the shielding structure in operation is in translatory oscillation along the axis of said coaxial solid figures (Paragraph [0030]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne and in further view of European Patent No. 2 806 546 to Evans et al. (hereinafter Evans; provided by Applicant on 12/20/2023).
Regarding claim 16, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 15.
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach the armature element being in the form of a cylindrical surface, a hollow cylinder or a cylindrical crown, said armature element having on its surface one or more windings and being coaxial to a cylindrical surface or to a hollow cylinder or to a cylindrical crown of greater diameter having the function of an inductor and having on its surface one or more induction elements arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective winding of the armature element; and said shielding structure supporting a plurality of shielding sectors is represented by a cylindrical crown placed coaxially in the air gap between the armature element and the inductor and which in operation is set in rotation or in rotary oscillation around its axis.
However, Evans teaches an armature element (FIG. 8, 110) being in the form of a cylindrical surface, a hollow cylinder, or a cylindrical crown, said armature element having on its surface one or more windings (FIG. 8, 101) and being coaxial to a cylindrical surface or to a hollow cylinder or to a cylindrical crown of a greater diameter having the function of an inductor (FIG. 8, 120) and having on its surface one or more induction elements (FIG. 8, 105) arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective winding of the armature element; and said shielding structure supporting a plurality of shielding sectors is represented by a cylindrical crown (FIG. 8, 131) placed coaxially in the air gap between the armature element and the inductor and which in operation is set in rotation or in rotary oscillation around its axis (Paragraph [0032]).
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne with the geometry of Evans to suit the particular use case of the electric current generation apparatus in terms of physical dimension or relative sizing.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Evans and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,380,653 to Seguchi (cited by Applicant on 12/20/2023).
Regarding claim 17, Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Evans teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 16.
Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Evans does not teach a second static armature element in the form of a cylindrical surface or a hollow cylinder or a cylindrical crown placed externally and coaxially to the inductor and supporting one or more windings placed in such a way that each one of them is located at a respective induction element of the inductor; and a second movable shielding structure supporting a plurality of shielding sectors with a magnetic shielding function in the form of a cylindrical crown placed in the air gap between the second armature element and the inductor coaxial to all the structure provided and capable of rotating or oscillating in a rotary manner around its axis in a manner integral with the first shielding structure or independently thereof.
However, Seguchi teaches a second static armature element (FIG. 2, 1410) placed externally to an inductor (FIG. 2, 1210) supporting one or more windings (FIG. 2, 1411) located at a respective induction element (FIG. 2, 1211) of the inductor; and a second movable shielding structure (FIG. 2, 1310) supporting a plurality of shielding sectors (FIG. 2, 1311) with a magnetic shielding function placed in the air gap between the second armature element and the inductor coaxial to all the structures provided and capable of rotating or oscillating in a rotary manner around its axis in a manner integral with the first shielding structure or independently thereof (Column 3 lines 17-38).
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Evans with the second armature and second shielding structure of Seguchi to increase the potential power output of the apparatus.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne and in further view of Japanese Patent No. 6789451 to Mitsubishi Electric Co. Ltd. (hereinafter Mitsubishi; provided by Applicant on 12/20/2023).
Regarding claim 18, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 15.
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach said armature element and said inductor being fixed discoidal structures peripherally supporting respective windings and induction elements, said discoidal structures being coaxially arranged and in such a way that each winding is located at a respective induction sector; and said shielding structure being represented by a disc peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors coaxially arranged between said armature element and said inductor, wherein said shielding structure in operation is set in rotation or in rotary oscillation around its axis.
However, Mitsubishi teaches an armature element (FIG. 2, 20) and an inductor (FIG. 2, 10) being fixed discoidal structures peripherally supporting respective windings (FIG. 2, 22) and induction elements (FIG. 2, 12), said discoidal structures being coaxially arranged and in such a way that each winding is located at a respective induction sector; and a shielding structure (FIG. 2, 30) being represented by a disc peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors (FIG. 2, 31) coaxially arranged between said armature element and said inductor, wherein said shielding structure in operation is set in rotation or in rotary oscillation around its axis (Paragraph [0014]).
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne with the geometry of Mitsubishi to suit the particular use case of the electric current generation apparatus in terms of physical dimension or relative sizing.
Regarding claim 20, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric power generation apparatus according to claim 15.
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach said armature element and said inductor being fixed radial structures peripherally supporting respective windings and induction elements, said radial structures being coaxially arranged and in such a way that each winding is located at a respective induction sector; and said shielding structure is represented by a radial structure peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors coaxially placed between said armature element and said inductor, wherein said shielding structure in operation is set in rotation or rotary oscillation around its axis.
However, Mitsubishi teaches an armature element (FIG. 2, 20) and an inductor (FIG. 2, 10) being fixed radial structures peripherally supporting respective windings (FIG. 2, 22) and induction elements (FIG. 2, 12), said radial structures being coaxially arranged and in such a way that each winding is located at a respective induction sector; and a shielding structure (FIG. 2, 30) being represented by a radial structure peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors (FIG. 2, 31) coaxially arranged between said armature element and said inductor, wherein said shielding structure in operation is set in rotation or in rotary oscillation around its axis (Paragraph [0014]).
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne with the geometry of Mitsubishi to suit the particular use case of the electric current generation apparatus in terms of physical dimension or relative sizing.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Mitsubishi and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,184,040 to Lim (cited by Applicant on 12/20/2023).
Regarding claim 19, Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Mitsubishi teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 18.
Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Mitsubishi does not teach a second shielding structure represented by a disc peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors placed coaxially between said inductor and a second fixed armature element with discoidal structure peripherally supporting one or more windings arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective induction sector.
However, Lim teaches a second shielding structure (FIG. 7, 11) represented by a disc peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors (FIG. 8, 91) placed coaxially between an inductor (FIG. 7, 4) and a second fixed armature element (FIG. 7, 7) with discoidal structure peripherally supporting one or more windings (FIG. 7, 71) arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective induction sector.
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Lambourne and Mitsubishi with the second armature and second shielding structure of Lim to increase the potential power output of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 21, Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Mitsubishi teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 20.
Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Mitsubishi does not teach a second shielding structure formed by a radial structure peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors placed coaxially between said inductor and a second fixed armature element with radial structure peripherally supporting one or more windings arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective induction sector.
However, Lim teaches a second shielding structure (FIG. 7, 11) formed by a radial structure peripherally supporting a plurality of shielding sectors (FIG. 8, 91) placed coaxially between an inductor (FIG. 7, 4) and a second fixed armature element (FIG. 7, 7) with radial structure peripherally supporting one or more windings (FIG. 7, 71) arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective induction sector.
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Mitsubishi with the second armature and second shielding structure of Lim to increase the potential power output of the apparatus.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne and in further view of German Patent No. 8901215 to Hagedorn (provided by Applicant on 12/20/2023) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 4,079,277 to Osanai (cited by Applicant on 12/20/2023).
Regarding claim 22, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 15, wherein said shielding structure supporting a plurality of sectors with magnetic shielding function (Huang FIG. 2, 32) set in rotation or in rotary oscillation (Mipo Paragraph [0027]).
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach that said inductor being represented by the earth’s core; said armature element is represented by a ferrous core around which a winding is axially wound; said ferrous core is placed in the direction of the earth’s magnetic field lines and is surrounded by said closed box structure on all sides except for a part corresponding to a base of the ferrous core supporting the winding.
However, Hagedorn teaches an inductor represented by the earth’s core (Paragraph [0014]); an armature element represented by a ferrous core (FIG. 1, 12) around which a winding (FIG. 1; 3a, 3b) is axially wound.
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne with the geomagnetic power generation of Hagedorn to be able to produce a miniscule amount of power with very little upkeep to the inductor.
Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Hagedorn does not teach a closed box structure on all sides except for a part corresponding to a base of the ferrous core supporting the winding.
However, Osanai teaches a closed box (FIG. 37, 164) surrounding an armature element on all sides except for a part corresponding to a base of the ferrous core supporting the winding.
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, and Hagedorn with the box of Osanai to further concentrate magnetic flux to the armature.
Regarding claim 23, Mipo in view of Huang, Lambourne, Hagedorn, and Osanai teaches the electric current generation apparatus according to claim 22, wherein Huang further teaches said shielding structure being a cylinder, a hollow cylinder, a disc structure, or a radial structure (FIG. 2, 3) on the periphery of which are arranged said plurality of shielding sectors.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 8,049,353 to Eng et al. (hereinafter Eng).
Regarding claim 24, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation system according to claim 15.
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach an electric current generation system, characterized in that it comprises a series of electric current generation apparatuses.
However, Eng teaches an electric current generation system, characterized in that it comprises a series of electric current generation apparatuses (Paragraph [0026]-[0027]).
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 electric current generation system of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne with the series of electric current generation apparatuses of Eng to modularly increase the potential power output of the system.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne and in further view of Spanish Patent No. 2 615 155 to Alarcon Planes.
Regarding claim 25, Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne teaches the electric current generation system according to claim 25, wherein Huang further teaches the shielding structure being a substantially planar figure (FIG. 2, 3), supporting said sectors with the function of a magnetic shield (FIG. 2, 32); said shielding structure being in translatory oscillation coplanar to the plane of the same shielding structure and parallel to the planes of the inductor and the armature (Paragraph [0030]).
Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne does not teach the armature element being a fixed armature element of a substantially planar figure, having one or more electrical windings or conductor sectors; the inductor being a fixed inductor element of a substantially planar figure, having one or more induction elements arranged in such a way that each of them is located at a respective winding of the armature element.
However, Alarcon Planes teaches an electric generator with an armature element of a substantially planar figure (FIG. 15, 35), having one or more electrical windings or conductor sectors (FIG. 15, 31), the inductor being a fixed inductor element of a substantially planar figure (FIG. 1, 20), having one or more induction elements (FIG. 15, 22) arranged in such a way that each of the is located at a respective winding of the armature element.
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 electric current generation apparatus of Mipo in view of Huang and Lambourne with the planar armature and inductor elements of Alarcon Planes to suit the particular use case of the electric current generation apparatus in terms of physical dimension or relative sizing.
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