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 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(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over PALMER(US4358693A) in view of MURTY(US4544868A).
Regarding claim 1, Palmer teaches a monopolar vector rotation motor(1), comprising: a stator(2), which comprises a stator body(body of 2) and a plurality of electromagnets(7) arranged at equal angle along a circumference of the stator body, the stator body(body of 2) being arranged in a fixed manner and penetrated by a center axle(4) in a movable manner; and a rotor(3), which comprises a rotor body(body of 3) and a plurality of magnets(8) arranged at equal angle along a circumference of the rotor body, the rotor body(body of 3) being fixed to the center axle(4), wherein the rotor body is rotatable with the center axle relative to the stator body(body of 2) to have the magnets(8) corresponding in position to the electromagnets(7), and wherein the rotor body(body of 3) is rotatable relative to the stator body(body of 2) to have the magnets(8) not corresponding, in position, to the electromagnets(7)(Figs. 1-5).
Palmer does not explicitly teach a power supply control unit; the electromagnets being electrically connected with the power supply control unit; where the power supply control unit controls supply of electricity to the electromagnets to have electromagnetic forces of magnetisms consistent with the magnets induced with the electromagnets so as to apply a repelling magnetic force to drive the rotor body to continue rotating, where the power supply control unit controls interruption of the supply of electricity to the electromagnets to not induce the electromagnetic forces with the electromagnets, and the rotor body is kept continuing rotating until the magnets again correspond, in position, to the electromagnets, where the power supply control unit again controls supply of electricity to the electromagnets to induce electromagnetic forces with the electromagnets to drive the rotor body to continue rotating, this being cyclically repeated for operation.
However, Murty teaches a power supply control unit(18,44,46); the electromagnets(14a-14c) being electrically connected with the power supply control unit(18, part of power supply control unit); where the power supply control unit(18, 44, 46) controls supply of electricity to the electromagnets(14a-14c) to have electromagnetic forces of magnetisms consistent with the magnets(Permanent magnets) induced with the electromagnets(14a-14c) so as to apply a repelling magnetic force to drive the rotor body(12) to continue rotating, where the power supply control unit(14,44,46) controls interruption of the supply of electricity to the electromagnets(14a-14c) to not induce the electromagnetic forces with the electromagnets, and the rotor body is kept continuing rotating until the magnets again correspond, in position, to the electromagnets, where the power supply control unit(14,44,46) again controls supply of electricity to the electromagnets to induce electromagnetic forces with the electromagnets to drive the rotor body to continue rotating, this being cyclically repeated for operation(Figs. 1-4, Fig.4 shows cycle of interruption and continuation).
Murty is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Palmer because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Palmer a power supply control unit; the electromagnets being electrically connected with the power supply control unit; where the power supply control unit controls supply of electricity to the electromagnets to have electromagnetic forces of magnetisms consistent with the magnets induced with the electromagnets so as to apply a repelling magnetic force to drive the rotor body to continue rotating, where the power supply control unit controls interruption of the supply of electricity to the electromagnets to not induce the electromagnetic forces with the electromagnets, and the rotor body is kept continuing rotating until the magnets again correspond, in position, to the electromagnets, where the power supply control unit again controls supply of electricity to the electromagnets to induce electromagnetic forces with the electromagnets to drive the rotor body to continue rotating, this being cyclically repeated for operation, as taught by Murty. One would be motivated to do this in order to control the timing of electrical power to improve control accuracy and overall efficiency.
Regarding claim 2/1, Palmer in view of Murty teaches the monopolar vector rotation motor according to claim 1.
Palmer further teaches wherein when the electromagnets(7) are supplied with electricity, each of the electromagnets(7) induces, on two opposite sides(poles of coils) thereof in a radial direction of the stator body(body of 2), electromagnetic forces of opposite polarities; and wherein the magnets(8) arranged on the rotor body(body of 3) comprise a plurality of first magnets(8) arranged on a radial outer side of the rotor body and a plurality of second magnets(8) arranged on a radial inner side of the rotor body, the first magnets and the second magnets having magnetic forces respectively repelling with respect to two opposite sides of the electromagnets(Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 3/2, Palmer in view of Murty teaches the monopolar vector rotation motor according to claim 2.
Palmer further teaches wherein the rotor body(body of 3) is formed with an outer wall(inherent) at the radial outer side thereof and an inner wall(inherent between shaft and rotor) at a radial inner side thereof, the first magnets(8) being arranged on the outer wall, the second magnets(8) being arranged on the inner wall; and wherein a protruding wall(wall of stator body 2) is formed on an outer perimeter of the stator body, and the first electromagnets(7) are arranged on an external side of the protruding wall, and the second electromagnets(7) are arranged on an internal side of the protruding wall, the protruding wall being arranged between the outer wall and the inner wall(Figs. 1-5, shows magnets and electromagnets on opposing sides of rotor and stator walls).
Regarding claim 4/2, Palmer in view of Murty teaches the monopolar vector rotation motor according to claim 2.
Palmer further teaches wherein the rotor body(body of 3) comprises a first rotor body(3) and a second rotor body(3) that are spaced from each other and are concentrically fixed to the center axle(Fig.3, shows plurality of rotors), an outer wall(inherent) being formed on an outer perimeter of the first rotor body(body of 3), the first magnets(8) being arranged on an end edge of the outer wall, the second magnets(8) being arranged on an outer periphery of the second rotor body(body of 3); and wherein the first electromagnets(7) are arranged on an outer periphery of the stator body(body of 2), and the second electromagnets(7) are arranged on an inner periphery of the stator body(body of 2), the stator body(body of 2) being arranged between the first rotor body and the second rotor body(Figs. 1-3, shows stator in between two rotors).
Palmer in view of Murty does not explicitly teach an outside diameter of the second rotor body being smaller than an inside diameter of the outer wall.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to an outside diameter of the second rotor body being smaller than an inside diameter of the outer wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to do this in order to have concentric stacked rotors concisely for efficient special management.
Regarding claim 5/3, Palmer in view of Murty teaches the monopolar vector rotation motor according to claim 3.
Palmer in view of Murty does not explicitly teach wherein one side of each of the first magnets and the second magnets that faces the electromagnets is formed with an oblique surface, and one side of each of the first electromagnets and the second electromagnets that faces the oblique surface is formed with a planar surface.
However, Palmer does teach magnets and coils may have various shapes and configurations(Col. 4, Lines 19-23). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have one side of each of the first magnets and the second magnets that faces the electromagnets is formed with an oblique surface, and one side of each of the first electromagnets and the second electromagnets that faces the oblique surface is formed with a planar surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to do this in order to optimize magnetic flux interaction, reduce torque ripple, and overall increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 5/3, Palmer in view of Murty teaches the monopolar vector rotation motor according to claim 3.
Palmer in view of Murty does not explicitly teach wherein one side of each of the first magnets and the second magnets that faces the electromagnets is formed with an oblique surface, and one side of each of the first electromagnets and the second electromagnets that faces the oblique surface is formed with a planar surface.
However, Palmer does teach magnets and coils may have various shapes and configurations(Col. 4, Lines 19-23). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have one side of each of the first magnets and the second magnets that faces the electromagnets is formed with an oblique surface, and one side of each of the first electromagnets and the second electromagnets that faces the oblique surface is formed with a planar surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to do this in order to optimize magnetic flux interaction, reduce torque ripple, and overall increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 7/1, Palmer in view of Murty teaches the monopolar vector rotation motor according to claim 1.
Palmer further teaches wherein the rotor body(body of 3) comprises a first rotor body(3) and a second rotor body(3) that are spaced from each other and are respectively arranged at two opposite sides of the fixed rotor body in an axial direction and are concentrically fixed to the center axle(4); wherein the magnets(8) comprise a plurality of first magnets(8) arranged on the first rotor body(3) and a plurality of second magnets(8) arranged on the second rotor body(3); and wherein when the electromagnets(7) are supplied with electricity, each of the electromagnets(7) induces electromagnetic forces on two opposite sides thereof in an axial direction of the rotor body(3) respectively, the electromagnets(7) being arranged as a plurality of circles at different diametric positions on the stator body(2); the first magnets(8) are arranged as a plurality of circles set at different diametric positions on the first rotor body(3) to have the first magnets(8) corresponding to one side of the electromagnets(7); and the second magnets(8) are arranged as a plurality of circles set at different diametric positions on the second rotor body(3) to have the second magnets(8) corresponding to an opposite side of the electromagnets(7)(Figs. 1-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect. uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834