DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 2.27.26. Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1 and added new claim 9 which will be examined below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments to which the Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: As described above, both SHINZATO and UIMEMOTO teach configurations in which electric current is directly applied to the rotor and the stator, and the rotor is rotated by changes in magnetism generated in both the rotor and the stator. In contrast, with the embodiments of the present disclosure, the superconducting rotor becomes capable of being driven mainly by synchronous torque by transitioning from the magnetic shielding state to the magnetic flux trapping state via the magnetic flux flow state.
Examiner Response 1: Applicant has added new limitations “wherein the superconducting rotor changes from a magnetic shielding state to a magnetic flux trapping state via a magnetic flux flow state” which will be prosecuted in below sections.
Applicant Argument 2: Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits the ordinarily-skilled artisan would have no motivation to adopt iron stator and rotor cores (i.e., a stator iron core and a rotor iron core) of UMEMOTO in the invention of SHINZATO. In the invention of SHINZATO, superconducting coils are used in both the rotor and the stator, and since both components require cooling, improvement of sealing performance constitutes an issue (see paragraph [0008] of SHINZATO). In contrast, UIMEMOTO presupposes that the rotor is superconducting while the stator is normal-conductive, and aims to improve power conversion efficiency in a superconducting rotating electrical machine having a superconducting rotor and a normal-conductive stator (see paragraph [0014] of UMEMOTO).
Examiner Response 2: Examiner does not fully understand the gist of above argument in relation to choice of material for core. As stated in previous Office action, the reason for combining with Umemoto is its explicit choice of core material i.e., iron which is being done for its magnetic flux conducting properties.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinzato et al (US20120053060A1), hereinafter Shinzato in view of Nakamura (US20110084566A1) and Umemoto (US20120161568A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shinzato discloses (Figs 1-3) a superconducting rotating machine (100), comprising:
a stator (20) that has a tubular stator core (23) and a stator winding (10) wound around the stator core, and that generates a rotating magnetic field [0023 discloses rotation]; and
a superconducting rotor (30) that is rotatably held by the rotating magnetic field of the stator (20)and that has a superconducting winding (10) including a plurality of coil-shaped spliceless loop members [0023 discloses “race track coils”] made of a superconducting material [0023], and a rotor core (13) including a slot (space between teeth 13) for housing the spliceless loop members (10) but does not explicitly disclose a stator iron core and rotor iron core (Shinzato in Para 0023 discloses magnetism in stator and rotor core) and wherein the superconducting rotor changes from a magnetic shielding state to a magnetic flux trapping state via a magnetic flux flow state”.
Umemoto discloses [0009] a stator iron core and rotor iron core.
Nakamura discloses (Figs 1,8)[Para 0086,0087,008] wherein the superconducting rotor (7) changes from a magnetic shielding state to a magnetic flux trapping state via a magnetic flux flow state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Shinzato with stator and rotor core made of iron as taught by Umemoto in order to have required magnetic flux conducting properties of rotor and stator core and changes from a magnetic shielding state to a magnetic flux trapping state via a magnetic flux flow state in order to have an operable super conductive electric motor (See Para 0086 and then Para 0087 discloses how control device 25 increases voltage to bring 73 into a state magnetic flux flow and Para 0088 discloses acceleration of rotor 7, reduction of current in 73 until trapping of magnetic flux (See Fig 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
402
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
572
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
374
550
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura further discloses wherein the superconducting winding (Shinzato, 10) includes a plurality of electrically separated spliceless loop members (In Fig 3,10 is not connected by end ring”) .
Regarding Claim 3, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura further discloses wherein the spliceless loop members (Shinzato, 10) are sheet-like members (Fig 3) having a notched part (inside corner of 10 can be called a “notch”).
Regarding Claim 4, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura further discloses wherein the spliceless loop members (Shinzato, 10) are housed in the slot (Fig 3, 13s) so as come into contact with at least a part of another one of the spliceless loop members (13s has adjacent 10) .
Regarding Claim 9, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura further discloses
wherein the spliceless loop members [Shinzato, Para 0023 discloses helically wound “race track coils” and none of Figures such as Fig 3 do not include any solder joint].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinzato in view of Umemoto, Nakamura and Masson (US20070052304A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Shinzato in view of Umemoto discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a ship including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Masson discloses [0005]a ship including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura with application in a ship as taught by Iwakuma in order to propel the ship.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinzato in view of Umemoto, Nakamura and Iwakuma (US20220216779A1 PCT Filing date 4.24.20)
Regarding Claim 6, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura does not explicitly disclose an automobile including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Iwakuma discloses [0009]an automobile including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura with application in automobile as taught by Iwakuma in order to propel the automobile.
Regarding Claim 7, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura does not explicitly disclose an aircraft including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Iwakuma discloses [0069]an aircraft including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura with application in automobile as taught by Iwakuma in order to propel the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 8, Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a pump including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Iwakuma discloses [0108]a pump including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Shinzato in view of Umemoto and Nakamura with application in pump as taught by Iwakuma in order to power the pump.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights