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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over UMEMOTO(US20150018219A1).
Regarding claim 1, Umemoto teaches a superconducting machine(Fig. 1), comprising: a main shaft(10); an armature(stator of the superconductor rotary machine not shown) comprising at least one armature winding(stator windings interacting with the rotor field windings) arranged with respect to the main shaft(10); a carrier structure(20) arranged circumferentially around the main shaft(10) and defining a circumferential surface; a plurality of superconducting coils(30) secured to the circumferential surface of the carrier structure(20), each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30) having a first common polarity(Para[0076]); and a void space(70) between each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30), each of the void spaces(70) having a second common polarity(Para[0076]), each of the second common polarities being in opposition with the first common polarities(Para[0076], alternating pole arrangement results in opposite polarity magnetic regions between adjacent coils).
Regarding claim 2/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the first common polarities each comprise a north pole and the second common polarities comprise a south pole or vice versa(Para[0076], Reference teaches coils excited so that N-pole and S-pole appear alternately. The alternating pole arrangement results in opposite polarity magnetic regions between adjacent coils).
Regarding claim 2/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the first common polarities each comprise a north pole and the second common polarities comprise a south pole or vice versa(Para[0076], Reference teaches coils excited so that N-pole and S-pole appear alternately. The alternating pole arrangement results in opposite polarity magnetic regions between adjacent coils).
Regarding claim 3/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto further teaches wherein each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30) defines a quadrilateral shape(Figs. 1-3, Para[0062-0063], Reference teaches coils stored in coil boxes that define rectangular cavities by walls 25).
Regarding claim 4/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto further teaches wherein each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30) defines an arcuate cross-sectional shape(Figs. 1-3, Para[0075], race-track type coils which form arcuate geometry).
Regarding claim 5/4, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 4.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the arcuate cross- sectional shapes comprise at least one of a circle, an oval, or a racetrack shape, the racetrack shape defining opposing curved ends with parallel straightaway side portions(Figs. 1-3, Para[0075], race-track type).
Regarding claim 6/5, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 5.
Umemoto further teaches wherein each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30) defines the racetrack shape(Para[0075]), and wherein the void spaces(70) have a width equal to a distance between the parallel straightway side portions of each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30)(Figs. 1-3, Para[0075], race-track type inherently have two parallel straight segments by curve ends, and the adjacent coil structures are mounted around the shaft with defined spacing determined by coil geometry).
Regarding claim 7/6, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 6.
Umemoto further teaches wherein straightway side portions of adjacent superconducting coils(30) of the plurality of superconducting coils are evenly spaced(Para[0054-0060]), coils are distributed around the rotor(i.e. 6 pole configuration), resulting in equal spacing around the shaft).
Regarding claim 10/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the void spaces(70) are comprised of non-ferromagnetic material(Para[0121], Rotary shaft which the void spaces are in, is made of SUS316 which is non-ferromagnetic).
Regarding claim 12, Umemoto teaches a method of assembling a superconducting machine(Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing a main shaft(10); coupling an armature(stator of the superconductor rotary machine not shown) to the main shaft(10), the armature having at least one armature winding(stator windings interacting with the rotor field windings); placing a carrier structure(20) around the main shaft(10) and the armature(stator of the superconductor rotary machine not shown); coupling at least one superconducting coil(30) on a circumferential interior or exterior surface of the carrier structure(20), the at least one superconducting coil(30) defining a first polarity; and providing a void space(70) adjacent to the at least one superconducting coil(30) on the circumferential interior or exterior surface of the carrier structure(20), wherein the void space(70) contains a consequent, opposing second polarity to the first polarity of the at least one superconducting coil(Figs. 1-3, Para[0076], alternating pole arrangement results in opposite polarity magnetic regions between adjacent coils).
Regarding claim 13/12, Umemoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Umemoto further teaches comprising coupling a plurality of superconducting coils(30) on the circumferential interior or exterior surface of the carrier structure(20), the at least one superconducting coil(30) being one of the plurality of superconducting coils(30), each of the plurality of superconducting coils defining the first polarity(Para[0076], Reference teaches coils excited so that N-pole and S-pole appear alternately).
Regarding claim 14/12, Umemoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the plurality of superconducting coils(30) are spaced apart via a plurality of void spaces(70), the void space(70) being one of the plurality of void spaces(70), each of the plurality of void spaces(70) defining the consequent, opposing second polarity(Para[0076], Reference teaches coils excited so that N-pole and S-pole appear alternately).
Regarding claim 15/14, Umemoto teaches the method of claim 14.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the first polarities each comprise a north pole and the second polarities comprise a south pole or vice versa(Para[0076], Reference teaches coils excited so that N-pole and S-pole appear alternately).
Regarding claim 16/12, Umemoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Umemoto further teaches wherein each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30) defines a cross-sectional shape, wherein the cross-sectional shapes comprise at least one of a quadrilateral shape or an arcuate shape, the arcuate shape comprising one of a circle, an oval, or a racetrack shape, the racetrack shape defining opposing curved ends with parallel straightaway side portions(Figs. 1-3, Para[0075], race-track type coils which form arcuate geometry. Race-track type inherently have two parallel straight segments by curve ends, and the adjacent coil structures are mounted around the shaft with defined spacing determined by coil geometry).
Regarding claim 17/12, Umemoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Umemoto further teaches wherein the void spaces(70) comprises one of a vacuum or of non-ferromagnetic material(Para[0121], Rotary shaft which the void spaces are in, is made of SUS316 which is non-ferromagnetic).
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over UMEMOTO(US20150018219A1) in view of GAMBLE(US6489701B1).
Regarding claim 8/6, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 6.
Umemoto is silent wherein straightway side portions of each superconducting coil of the plurality of superconducting coils extend beyond the pole boundaries, thereby creating unequal areas for the physical coils and the void spaces.
However, Gamble teaches a superconducting motor(10) wherein straightway side portions(30a) of each superconducting coil(26) of the plurality of superconducting coils extend beyond the pole boundaries(Fig. 3), thereby creating unequal areas for the physical coils and the void spaces(Inherent that space between coils occupies a different region which are unequal areas based on geometry and pole topology).
Gamble is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Umemoto 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 Umemoto silent wherein straightway side portions of each superconducting coil of the plurality of superconducting coils extend beyond the pole boundaries, thereby creating unequal areas for the physical coils and the void spaces, as taught by Gamble. One would be motivated to do this in order to control the magnetic flux distribution and improve electromagnetic performance of the superconducting coils.
Regarding claim 9/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto is silent wherein the void spaces comprise a vacuum.
However, Gamble teaches comprising a cryostat vacuum enclosure(25).
Umemoto in view of Gamble teaches the void spaces(Umemoto, 70) being in a vacuum environment(Gamble, 25).
Gamble is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Umemoto 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 Umemoto wherein the void spaces comprise a vacuum, as taught by Gamble. One would be motivated to do this in order to improve thermal insulation and maintain superconducting operating temperature of the coins.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over UMEMOTO(US20150018219A1).
Regarding claim 11/1, Umemoto teaches the superconducting machine of claim 1.
Umemoto is silent wherein each of the plurality of superconducting coils have a coil width, wherein the coil widths are less than, equal to, or greater than a pole pitch of the plurality of superconducting coils, with the coil widths being less than or equal to twice the pole pitch.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have each of the plurality of superconducting coils have a coil width, wherein the coil widths are less than, equal to, or greater than a pole pitch of the plurality of superconducting coils, with the coil widths being less than or equal to twice the pole pitch, 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 distribution and electromagnetic performance of the machine.
Regarding claim 18/12, Umemoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Umemoto is silent wherein each of the plurality of superconducting coils have a coil width, wherein the coil widths are less than, equal to, or greater than a pole pitch of the of plurality of superconducting coils, with the coil widths being less than or equal to twice the pole pitch.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have each of the plurality of superconducting coils have a coil width, wherein the coil widths are less than, equal to, or greater than a pole pitch of the plurality of superconducting coils, with the coil widths being less than or equal to twice the pole pitch, 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 distribution and electromagnetic performance of the machine.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over TORREY(US20210270239A1) in view of UMEMOTO(US20150018219A1).
Regarding claim 19, Torrey teaches a wind turbine(100), comprising: a tower(108); a nacelle(102) mounted on the tower(108); a rotor(104) coupled to the nacelle(102), the rotor comprising a rotatable hub(110) and at least one rotor blade(112) secured thereto; a superconducting generator(114) coupled to the rotor(104), the superconducting generator comprising: a main shaft(116); an armature(204) comprising at least one armature winding(320) arranged with respect to the main shaft(116)(Figs. 1-3).
Torrey doesn’t explicitly teach a carrier structure arranged circumferentially around the main shaft and defining a circumferential exterior surface; a plurality of superconducting coils secured to the circumferential interior or exterior surface of the carrier structure, each of the plurality of superconducting coils having a first common polarity; and a void space between each of the plurality of superconducting coils, each of the void spaces having a second common polarity, each of the second common polarities being in opposition with the first common polarities.
However, Umemoto teaches a carrier structure(20) arranged circumferentially around the main shaft(10) and defining a circumferential exterior surface; a plurality of superconducting coils(30) secured to the circumferential interior or exterior surface of the carrier structure(20), each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30) having a first common polarity; and a void space(70) between each of the plurality of superconducting coils(30), each of the void spaces(70) having a second common polarity, each of the second common polarities being in opposition with the first common polarities(Para[0076]).
Umemoto is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Torrey 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 wherein a carrier structure arranged circumferentially around the main shaft and defining a circumferential exterior surface; a plurality of superconducting coils secured to the circumferential interior or exterior surface of the carrier structure, each of the plurality of superconducting coils having a first common polarity; and a void space between each of the plurality of superconducting coils, each of the void spaces having a second common polarity, each of the second common polarities being in opposition with the first common polarities, as taught by Gamble. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide a known rotor structure for generating magnetic poles in the wind turbine generator.
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