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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claim 5 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means”, but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “circuitry is configured to apply a first AC signal to the first cable, a second AC signal to the second cable, and a third AC signal to the third cable, wherein each of the first AC signal, the second AC signal, and the third AC signal is 120° shifted in phase from the other AC signals” (emphasis added), as recited in the base claim 5; “the circuit is configured to: perform a transformation on the first detected signal, the second detected signal, and the third detected signal to generate a first transformed signal, a second transformed signal, and a third transformed signal” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 5; “the circuitry is configured to: determine, from the first, second, and third transformed signals, a first phase for the first transformed signal, a second phase for the second transformed signal, and a third phase of the third transformed signal” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 5; “the circuitry is further configured to: calculating a torque on the shaft based on a difference between two of the first phase, the second phase, and the third phase”(emphasis added), as recited in claim 5; without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 5 has been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 12-20 are ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 5 and 12-20 are a pump motor and a method. The machine/apparatus and method involve multiple mental steps.
Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method (claims 12-20). Thus, the claim 5 is a machine and the claims 12- 20 are a process, which are one of statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Limitations receiving data (i.e., “applying a first AC singal” (emphasis added) of claim 5, line 3; “receive a first detected signal on the first cable, a second detected signal on the second cable, and a third detected signal on the third cable” (emphasis added), of claim 5, lines 6-7; “measuring a resultant signal received from the pump motor” (emphasis added), of claim 12, line 10) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “determine a twist on the shaft based on the transformed signal” (emphasis added), of claim 12, line 12; “determine a torque on the shaft based on the transformed signal” (emphasis added), of claim 12, line 13; “determine an angular difference of the first rotor relative to the second rotor” (emphasis added), of claim 13, lines 1-2; “calculating the torque using the angular difference and a torsional stiffness of the shaft” (emphasis added), of claim 14, line 1-2; “determine a twist on the shaft based on the transformed signal” (emphasis added), of claim 12, line 12) are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
These limitations also fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii).
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers these limitations as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section Ill(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional elements “circuitry”, in claim 5, which can use controller and/or processor to perform the recited steps. The controller or the processor and memory in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. An evaluation of whether limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation is well- known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the short primary linear motor does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of using circuitry which can be a processor/controller and memory to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A processor to no more than well-understood, routine or conventional which is notoriously well-known. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Such as “determining”, “calculating”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 5 and 12-14 are not patent eligible.
Claim 15-20 are rejected dure to dependencies on the base claims 12.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pichilingue (US 2016/0348487 A1) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter li, CN 110994930 A).
For claim 1, Pichilingue discloses an electric submersible pump motor (Figs. 1-2 of Pichilingue disclose an electric submersible pump motor including a pump 120 which includes an electric motor section 121 and a pump section 122 – see Pichilingue, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0025]-[0026]), the pump motor comprising:
a shaft (Fig. 2 of Pichilingue discloses a shaft 222 – see Pichilingue, Fig. 2, paragraph [0028]) ;
a main rotor-stator assembly coupled to the shaft (Figs. 1-2 of Pichilingue discloses a main rotor-stator assembly 121 which includes stator 210 and permanent magnets 221 coupled to the shaft 222 – see Pichilingue, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0026] and [0028]-[0029]).
Pichilingue discloses Stator which incorporates ta set of Hall sensors 215 (see Pichilingue, Fig. 2, paragraph [0030]. Pichilingue discloses the pump motor which is silent for comprising:
a first rotor-stator assembly coupled to the shaft; and
a second rotor-stator assembly coupled to the shaft,
wherein the main rotor-stator assembly is positioned between the first rotor-stator assembly and the second rotor-stator assembly.
However, Li discloses a motor (see Li, Figs 1-2. Paragraphs [0004] which comprises:
a main rotor-stator assembly coupled to the shaft (Figs. 1-2 of Li discloses a main rotor-stator assembly 6,7 including a main stator 6 and main rotor 7 coupled to the shaft 1 – see Li, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0005], [0070] and [0073]).
a first rotor-stator assembly coupled to the shaft (Fig. 2 of Li discloses a first rotor-stator assembly 4,5 coupled to the shaft 1, wherein the first rotor-stator assembly 4,5 comprises a first sensor stator 4 and a first sensor rotor 5 – see Li, Fig. 2, paragraph [0073], lines 1-4); and
a second rotor-stator assembly coupled to the shaft (Fig. 2 of Li discloses a second rotor-stator assembly 9,10 coupled to the shaft 1, wherein the second rotos-stator 9,10 assembly comprises a second sensor stator 10 and a second sensor rotor 9 – see Li, Fig. 2, paragraph [0073]),
wherein the main rotor-stator assembly is positioned between the first rotor-stator assembly and the second rotor-stator assembly (Fig. 2 of Li discloses the main rotor-stator assembly 6,7 is positioned between the first rotor-stator assembly 4,5 and the second rotor-stator assembly 9,10 – see Li, Fig. 2, paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Pichilingue’s motor to have structure as Li’s motor for purpose of obtaining position accurately within a certain angle range to increase reliability.
For claim 2, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 1, wherein the main rotor-stator assembly is a three-phase motor (Figs. 2-3 of Pichilingue discloses the main rotor-stator assembly 210,221 which is a three phase motor – see Pichilingue, Figs. 2-3, paragraph [0029]).
For claim 3, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 2, comprising a first cable, a second cable, and a third cable coupled to a main stator of the main rotor-stator assembly, to a first stator of the first rotor stator assembly, and to a second stator of the second rotor-stator assembly (Fig. 2 of Pichilingue in view of Fig. 2 of Li disclose a first cable (See Pichilingue, Fig. 1, cable 218), a second cable (See Pichilingue, Fig. 1, cable 218), and a third cable (See Pichilingue, Fig. 1, cable 218) coupled to Li’s a main stator 6 of the main rotor-stator assembly (6,7), to a first stator 4 of the first rotor stator assembly (4,5), and to Li’s second stator 10 of the second rotor-stator assembly (9,10) – see Pichillingue, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0008], [0012, [0014] and [0029]; and see Li, Fig. 2, paragraph [0072]).
For claim 4, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 3, wherein the first stator, the main stator, and the second stator are electrically connected in series (Fig. 2 of Li discloses the first stator 4, the main stator 6, and the second stator 10 are electrically connected in series – see Li, Fig. 2, paragraph [0073], lines 9-13).
For claim 6, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 2, wherein the main rotor-stator assembly comprises a main number of poles (Fig. 1-2 of Pichilingue discloses the main rotor-stator assembly 121/210,221 which comprises a main number of poles – see Pichilingue, Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0029]), the first rotor-stator assembly comprises a first number of poles, and the second rotor-stator assembly comprises a second number of poles (Fig. 2 of Li discloses the first rotor-stator assembly 4,5 and the second rotor-stator assembly 9,10 which inherently have first number of poles and second number of poles, respectively).
For claim 7, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 6, wherein each pole of the main number of poles comprises a main winding number of windings (Fig. 2 of Pichilingue discloses pole 210 of the main number of poles comprises a main winding number of windings 213 – see Pichilingue, paragraphs [0029]) , each pole of the first number of poles comprises a first winding number of windings, and each pole of the second number of poles comprises a second winding number of windings (Fig. 2 of Li discloses each pole of the first number of poles which inherently comprises a first winding number of windings, and each pole of the second number of poles which inherently comprises a second winding number of windings.
Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the main winding number, the first winding number, and the second winding number which are silent for being different from each other. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the main winding number, the first winding number, and the second winding number which are different from each other, since the applicant has not disclosed that difference from each other of the main winding number, the first winding number, and the second winding number solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with specific structure of the main winding number, the first winding number, and the second winding number. Different winding numbers in motor are used to control torque and speed of motor control system.
For claim 8, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 6, wherein the main number, the first number, and the second number are different from each other (Pichilingue in view of Li obviously disclose the main number, the first number, and the second number which are silent for being different from each other. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the main number, the first number, and the second number which are different from each other, since the applicant has not disclosed that difference from each other of the main number, the first number, and the second number solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with specific structure of the main number, the first number, and the second number. different number of poles in motor are used to control speed of motor control system).
For claim 9, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 8, wherein the first number of poles is twice the main number of poles, and wherein the second number of poles is three times the main number of poles (Pichilingue in view of Li obviously disclose the main number, the first number, and the second number, Pichilingue in view of Li obviously disclose the first number of poles which is silent to be twice the main number of poles, and the second number of poles which is silent for being three times the main number of poles. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first number of poles which is twice the main number of poles, and the second number of poles which is three times the main number of poles, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Different number of poles in motor are used to control speed of motor control system).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pichilingue (US 2016/0348487 A1) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter Li, CN 110994930 A), further in view of Doyama et al. (hereinafter Doyama, US 5,646,499 A).
For claim 5, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the pump motor of claim 3, further comprising a circuit coupled to the first cable, the second cable, and the third cable (Figs. 1 and 3 of Pichilingue discloses a circuit 110/300 coupled to the first cable 112, the second cable 112, and the third cable 112 – see Pichilingue, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0008], [0025], and [0027]), wherein the circuit is configured to:
apply a first AC signal to the first cable, a second AC signal to the second cable, and a third AC signal to the third cable, wherein each of the first AC signal, the second AC signal, and the third AC signal is 120° shifted in phase from the other AC signals (Figs. 1 and 3A of Pichilingue disclose cable 112 including the first, second and third cables, wherein the circuit is configured to apply a first AC signal to the first cable 112, a second AC signal to the second cable 112, and a third AC signal to the third cable 112, wherein each of the first AC signal, the second AC signal, and the third AC signal is 120° shifted in phase from the other AC signals – see Pichilingue, Figs. 1 and 3A, paragraphs [0014], [0025], [0031]-[0032] and [0040]);
receive a first detected signal on the first cable (Fig. 3A of Pichilingue indicates feedback signal to “voltage and current monitor” 350, no reference numerals), a second detected signal on the second cable (Fig. 3A of Pichilingue indicates feedback signal to “voltage and current monitor” 350, no reference numerals), and a third detected signal on the third cable (Fig. 3A of Pichilingue indicates feedback signal to “voltage and current monitor” 350, no reference numerals) , (see Pichilingue, Figs. 1 and 3A, paragraph [0037]).
Pichilingue and Li disclose the circuit which is silent for being configured to
perform a transformation on the first detected signal, the second detected signal, and the third detected signal to generate a first transformed signal, a second transformed signal, and a third transformed signal;
determine, from the first, second, and third transformed signals, a first phase for the first transformed signal, a second phase for the second transformed signal, and a third phase of the third transformed signal.
calculate a torque on the shaft based on a difference between two of the first phase, the second phase, and the third phase.
However, Doyama discloses the circuit (Fig. 1 of Doyama disclose the circuit -- see Doyama, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 24-35) which is configured to
perform a transformation on the first detected signal, the second detected signal, and the third detected signal to generate a first transformed signal, a second transformed signal, and a third transformed signal (Figs. 1 and 9 of Doyama disclose current calculator 101 which performs a transformation on the first detected signal 3u, the second detected signal 3v, and the third detected signal to generate a first transformed signal, a second transformed signal, and a third transformed signal via inverse cycle counter 22 – see Doyama, Figs. 1 and 9, col. 10, lines 25-46);
determine, from the first, second, and third transformed signals, a first phase for the first transformed signal, a second phase for the second transformed signal, and a third phase of the third transformed signal (see Doyama, Fig. 9, col. 10, lines 43-46); and
calculate a torque on the shaft based on a difference between two of the first phase, the second phase, and the third phase (Fig. 7 of Pichilingue discloses calculating a torque on the shaft based on a difference between two of the first phase, the second phase, and the third phase – see Doyama, Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 41-51 and col. 15, lines 14-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Pichilingue in view of Li to incorporate teaching of Doyama for purpose of obtaining accurate performance analysis and improving efficiency for controlling the motor to drive pump.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pichilingue (US 2016/0348487 A1) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter li, CN 110994930 A), further in view of McCann et al. (hereinafter McCann, US 2014/0069629 A1).
For claim 10, Pichilingue in view of Li disclose all limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the bus which electrically connects the first cable, the second cable, and the third cable (Fig. 3A of Pichilingue discloses the bus “output of variable DC/DC converter 320” which electrically connects the first cable, the second cable, and the third cable “output lines of IGBT output switches 330” -- see Pichilingue, Fig. 3A, paragraphs [0032]. Pichilingue in view of Li disclose the bus which is silent to be a bus-bar ring. However, McCann discloses the bus-bar ring electrically connects the first cable, the second cable, and the third cable (Figs. 2A and 8 of McCann disclose the bus-bar ring 13F which electrically connects the first cable, the second cable, and the third cable 13G/46 -- see McCann, Figs. 2A and 8, paragraph [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Pichilingue in view of Li to incorporate teaching of McCann for purpose of proving significant advantages in reliability, maintenance and space utilization.
For claim 11, Pichilingue in view of Li, further in view of McCann disclose the pump motor of claim 10, wherein the first rotor-stator assembly and the second rotor-stator assembly are aligned along an axis of rotation of the shaft (see Li, Fig. 2, paragraph [0022], [0050] and [0089]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, EDUARDO COLON-SANTANA can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846