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 Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 15-20 are withdrawn without traverse.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first ring winding” and “second ring winding” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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).
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 ring winding (11, fig. 15)
Kang does not teach: a 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 dual wound coil can be configured to “to achieve increased efficiency, increased output torque, and/or reduced operating losses via use of a dual wound coil.”, (see fig. 4A and the Abstract: “Electrical machines, for example 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.”)
“To achieve increased efficiency, increased output torque, and/or reduced operating losses via use of a dual wound coil”, 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: a first ring winding and a second ring winding each disposed in a shared transverse flux core of the plurality of transverse flux cores and each configured to conduct a corresponding current.
Regarding claim 11, Kang as modified by Janecek 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 in claim 10 discloses the dual-wound transverse flux machine of claim 10, 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 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 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 allowed.
Regarding claim 1, Kang as discussed regarding claim 10 discloses a transverse flux machine (TFM) comprising:
a rotor configured to rotate about an axis and having a plurality of pairs of permanent magnets, with a flux concentrating core and a flux diverging core having alternating placements between the permanent magnets of each of the pairs of the permanent magnets, 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; and
a stator including a transverse flux core configured to direct the magnetic flux in each of a radial direction and an axial direction.
Kang does not disclose: the rotor further includes a non-magnetic material located between the permanent magnets of each of the pairs of the permanent magnets, adjacent to the flux concentrating core and opposite from the stator, the non-magnetic material having a thickness (TH) in a radial direction.
None of the prior art of record anticipates or in combination renders obvious the limitations of claim 1; hence, claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-9 are also allowed because they depend on claim 1.
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
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
Prosecution Insights