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 . Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 15-20 were withdrawn without traverse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed on 09/17/2026, with respect to the objection to drawings and rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection and rejection have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gieras et al. (US 20110062833 A1) as will be described below regarding claim 10.
Applicant has amended claims 15-20 making them depend on the allowed claim 1 and requested rejoinder for the claims. The request is accepted.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 15-20, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/26/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20080211326 A1) in view of Janecek, T. (US 20120119609 A1) and further in view Gieras et al. (US 20110062833 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kang discloses a
PNG
media_image2.png
431
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a rotor (7, fig. 12) configured to rotate about an axis (implied) and having a plurality of pairs of permanent magnets (magnets, annotated fig. 7, above), with a flux concentrating core (focusing core, annotated fig. 7) and a flux diverging core (diffusing core, annotated fig. 7) having alternating placements between the permanent magnets of each of the pairs of the permanent magnets (see annotated fig. 7), with each of the pairs of permanent magnets arranged to generate a magnetic flux in a circumferential direction into the flux concentrating core and away from the flux diverging core (see polarization directions in fig. 7);
PNG
media_image3.png
389
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a stator (fig. 14, above) including a plurality of transverse flux cores (10a in fig. 14 includes two disks),
PNG
media_image4.png
348
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
each of the transverse flux cores configured to direct the magnetic flux in each of a radial direction and an axial direction (see flux flow direction in fig. 8, above; this is implied for a transverse flux machine); and
PNG
media_image5.png
376
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a first winding set
the first ring winding
Kang does not teach: a second winding set that is electrically independent of the first winding set and the second winding set includes a second ring winding, the second ring winding disposed in the transverse flux of core of the plurality of transverse flux cores and configured to conduct a corresponding current.
PNG
media_image6.png
522
525
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Janecek teaches a first winding set and a second winding set transverse flux machines and/or commutated flux machines, may be configured to achieve increased efficiency, increased output torque, and/or reduced operating losses via use of a dual wound coil. The coil ends of a dual wound coil can be on a common side, simplifying wiring. The dual wound coil may be configured with a low resistance, reducing resistive losses.”)
Janecek does not teach the second ring wind to be electrically independent of the first ring winding. Gieras teaches a transverse flux machine (para [0001]) having two electrically independent windings to provide an electric motor with fault tolerance (see claim 8: “The alternator as set forth in claim 7, wherein there is a redundant set of stator windings to provide fault tolerance.”, see also figs. 7-9).
“To achieve increased efficiency, increased output torque, and/or reduced operating losses via use of a dual wound coil” and provide fault tolerance, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second coil to Kang’s design resulting in having: a second winding set that is electrically independent of the first winding set and the second winding set includes a second ring winding, the second ring winding disposed in the transverse flux of core of the plurality of transverse flux cores and configured to conduct a corresponding current.
Regarding claim 11, Kang as modified by Janecek and Gieras in claim 10 discloses the dual-wound transverse flux machine of claim 10, Kang further discloses wherein the first ring winding and the second ring winding each include wires having a rectangular cross-section. (implied, see the flat coil in fig. 11 in Kang; see also para [0045] in Janecek: “In an exemplary embodiment, dual wound coil 420 comprises flat copper wire having cross-sectional dimensions of about 0.144 inches (3.66 mm) wide by about 0.057 inches (1.45 mm) thick.”)
Regarding claim 12, Kang as modified by Janecek and Gieras in claim 10 discloses the dual-wound transverse flux machine of claim 10, Kang further discloses wherein the TFM has an internal rotor configuration with the stator extending annularly about the rotor (see the inner rotor 7 in fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Kang as modified by Janecek and Gieras in claim 10 discloses the dual-wound transverse flux machine of claim 10, but does not disclose: wherein the TFM has an external rotor configuration with the rotor extending annularly about the stator.
However, as Kang states, a TFM with outer rotors are known in the art, see para [0003]: “The present invention relates to an inner rotor type permanent magnet excited transverse flux motor and, more particularly, to an inner rotor type permanent magnet excited transverse flux motor, in which a laminated structure in an axial direction or in a radial shape is applied to a stator iron core so as to employ a small amount of permanent magnets compared with a conventional outer rotor type permanent magnet excited transverse flux motor, thus providing high output power, increasing the efficiency of power generation, and reducing noise and vibration.” Accordingly, when minimizing the amount of magnets is not a design criterion, larger torques can be obtained with more magnets in an outer rotor configuration.
To achieve larger torques, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design in such a way that: the TFM has an external rotor configuration with the rotor extending annularly about the stator.
Regarding claim 14, Kang as modified by Janecek and Gieras in claim 10 discloses the dual-wound transverse flux machine of claim 10, Kang further discloses wherein the TFM is a multi-phase machine (see N-phase in fig. 13, below), wherein each transverse flux core of the plurality of transverse flux cores have a ring shape (see fig. 13), and wherein the plurality of transverse flux cores are stacked axially and shifted circumferentially from one-another (see indicated axial shifts in fig. 13).
PNG
media_image7.png
604
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 were allowed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 15-20 depend on claim 1 and are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST..
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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
