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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,10,13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 9724536).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches:
A flywheel device (abstract) for a synchronous condenser (pre-amble, patentable weight not given), comprising:
a flywheel shaft (3, Fig 1),
a flywheel unit (16) having a moment of inertia (page 5 ll 14-28, page 6 ll 16-27), arranged around the flywheel shaft (3),
a protective cage (14) arranged radially outside the flywheel unit (16), and
an outer casing (12) accommodating the flywheel unit (16) and the protective cage (14).
Miller does not teach a flywheel unit having a moment of inertia of at least 10000 kgm2.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of scaling the flywheel device, based on cost, available space and desired output.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller to have a flywheel unit having a moment of inertia of at least 10000 kgm2.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost, available space and desired output.
Regarding claim 2/1, Miller teaches wherein the protective cage (14) comprises an annular core (radially inner portion by numeral 14, Fig 1) circumferentially entirely enclosing the flywheel unit (16).
Regarding claims 3/2, 4/2, and 17/3, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the annular core has a radial thickness dimension of at least 0.1 m, such as at least 0.2 m or at most 0.6 m or wherein the annular core has a radial thickness dimension of at most 0.6 m
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the annular core has a radial thickness dimension of at least 0.1 m, such as at least 0.2 m or at most 0.6 m, or wherein the annular core has a radial thickness dimension of at most 0.6 m based on cost, available space, weight and desired strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the annular core has a radial thickness dimension of at least 0.1 m, such as at least 0.2 m or at most 0.6 m or wherein the annular core has a radial thickness dimension of at most 0.6 m.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost, available space, weight and desired strength.
Regarding claim 10/1, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the protective cage is made of metal such as steel.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the protective cage is made of metal such as steel, based on cost, weight and desired strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the protective cage is made of metal such as steel.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost, weight and desired strength
Regarding claim 13/1, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the outer casing is made of metal such as steel.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the outer casing is made of metal such as steel, based on cost, weight and desired strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the outer casing is made of metal such as steel.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost, weight and desired strength.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 9724536) in view of Prober (US 2014/0260779).
Regarding claims 7/2, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the protective cage comprises a first and a second axial end wall attached to a respective axial end of the annular core, each of the first and the second axial end wall being provided with an end opening that has a smaller area than a circular through-opening of the annular core.
Prober teaches a device wherein the protective cage (35) comprises a first and a second axial end wall (10) attached to a respective axial end of the annular core (39), each of the first and the second axial end wall being provided with an end opening (by 15) that has a smaller area than a circular through-opening of the annular core
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the protective cage (14) comprises a first and a second axial end wall attached to a respective axial end of the annular core, each of the first and the second axial end wall being provided with an end opening that has a smaller area than a circular through-opening of the annular core, as Prober teaches.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost and weight (abstract, para 22, of Prober).
Regarding claims 19/3, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the protective cage comprises a first and a second axial end wall attached to a respective axial end of the annular core, each of the first and the second axial end wall being provided with an end opening that has a smaller area than a circular through-opening of the annular core.
Prober teaches a device wherein the protective cage (35) comprises a first and a second axial end wall (10) attached to a respective axial end of the annular core (39), each of the first and the second axial end wall being provided with an end opening (by 15) that has a smaller area than a circular through-opening of the annular core
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the protective cage (14) comprises a first and a second axial end wall attached to a respective axial end of the annular core, each of the first and the second axial end wall being provided with an end opening that has a smaller area than a circular through-opening of the annular core, as Prober teaches.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost and weight (abstract, para 22, of Prober)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 9724536) in view of Prober (US 2014/0260779), further in view of Tanimoto et al. (US 20230396125).
Regarding claims 9/7, Miller in view of Prober teaches the invention as discussed above, except, comprising crossbeams extending between the first axial end wall and the second axial end wall.
Tanimoto et al. teaches a device comprising crossbeams (27, Fig 2) extending between the first axial end wall (14A) and the second axial end wall (14B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller in view of Prober to further comprising crossbeams extending between the first axial end wall and the second axial end wall, as Tanimoto et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so would depend on desire structural strength (para 58 of Tanimoto et al.) and cost.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 9724536) in view of McIntosh (US 20220166289).
Regarding claim 11/1, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the protective cage comprises a first and a second ground attachment structure for attaching the protective cage to the ground.
McIntosh teaches an apparatus wherein the protective cage comprises a first and a second ground attachment structure for attaching the protective cage to the ground (paras 176-177).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the protective cage comprises a first and a second ground attachment structure for attaching the protective cage to the ground, as McIntosh teaches
The motivation to do so is it would limit short circuiting and protect eh machine and potential users.
Regarding claim 12/11, Miller in view of McIntosh teaches the invention as discussed above. Miller does not teach wherein the protective cage comprises a first and a second ground attachment structure for attaching the protective cage to the ground.
McIntosh teaches an apparatus wherein the first ground attachment structure and the second ground attachment structure support the annular core (paras 176-177).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller in view of McIntosh wherein the first ground attachment structure and the second ground attachment structure support the annular core, as McIntosh teaches
The motivation to do so is it would depend on desired structural rigidity and allow one to limit short circuiting and protect the machine and potential users
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 9724536) in view of Minagawa (JP 2011182516).
Regarding claim 14/1, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the synchronous condenser is configured to be connected to an electric grid operating in a voltage range of 5-15 kV.
Minagawa teaches an apparatus wherein the synchronous condenser is configured to be connected to an electric grid operating in a voltage range of 5-15 kV (para 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Miller wherein the synchronous condenser is configured to be connected to an electric grid operating in a voltage range of 5-15 kV, as Minagawa teaches.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired power and location of flywheel system to be installed based on proximity to a city (para 25 of Minagawa).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (US 7847423) in view of Miller (WO 9724536).
Regarding claim 15, Farkas teaches:
A synchronous condenser assembly configured to be connected to an electric grid (abstract, Fig 1, C3 ll 25-60), comprising:
a flywheel device (80) for a synchronous condenser (C3 ll 25-60), having:
a flywheel shaft (74),
a flywheel unit (82) having a moment of inertia (implicit),
arranged around the flywheel shaft (74), and
a synchronous condenser (30) having a synchronous condenser shaft (40,60) connected to the flywheel shaft (74).
Farkas does not teach a flywheel unit having a moment of inertia of at least 10000 kgm2 or a protective cage arranged radially outside the flywheel unit, and an outer casing accommodating the flywheel unit and the protective cage.
Miller teaches a flywheel unit (16) having a moment of inertia (page 5 ll 14-28, page 6 ll 16-27), arranged around the flywheel shaft (3),
a protective cage (14) arranged radially outside the flywheel unit (16), and
an outer casing (12) accommodating the flywheel unit (16) and the protective cage (14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Farkas to have a protective cage arranged radially outside the flywheel unit, and an outer casing accommodating the flywheel unit and the protective cage, as Miller teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would depend on cost, available space surrounding components and provide security and protection.
Farkas in view of Miller do not teach a flywheel unit having a moment of inertia of at least 10000 kgm2.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of scaling the flywheel device, based on cost, available space and desired output.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Farkas in view of Miller to have a flywheel unit having a moment of inertia of at least 10000 kgm2.
The motivation to do so would depend on cost, available space and desired output.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (US 7847423) in view of Miller (WO 9724536), further in view of Asada et al. (JP 2001268822).
Regarding claim 16/15, Farkas in view of Miller teaches the invention as discussed above, except comprising a pony motor configured to drive the synchronous condenser shaft up to a synchronisation speed of the electric grid.
Asada et al. teach a system comprising a pony motor configured to drive the synchronous condenser shaft up to a synchronisation speed (para 4)
Asada et al. do not teach to drive the synchronous condenser shaft up to a synchronisation speed of the electric grid.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits to drive the synchronous condenser shaft up to a synchronisation speed of the electric grid, since it would provide a direct link and drive between the components and eliminating drag.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Farkas in view of Miller to have a pony motor configured to drive the synchronous condenser shaft up to a synchronisation speed, as Asada et al. teach and have it drive the synchronous condenser shaft up to a synchronisation speed of the electric grid.
The motivation to do so is it would provide a direct link and drive between the components and eliminating drag.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 5/2 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the annular core comprises a plurality of sheets or plates arranged one after the other in a longitudinal direction of the flywheel shaft.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 6/5 is also allowable for depending on claim 5.
In claim 8/7 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the first axial end wall is mounted to a first axially outermost sheet or plate at a first axial end of the annular core and the second axial end wall is mounted to a second axially outermost sheet or plate at a second axial end of the annular core.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 18/3 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the annular core comprises a plurality of sheets or plates arranged one after the other in a longitudinal direction of the flywheel shaft.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834