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 .
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, 2,4,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752).
Regarding claim 1, Nagano et al. discloses:
An apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a main generator (48, Fig 1) comprising
a first rotor shaft (46r,50) configured to operate at a first speed and generate a first electrical output responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58);
a secondary generator (44) comprising
a second rotor shaft (84) located coaxially with the first rotor shaft (Fig 1) and configured to generate a second electrical output responsive to rotation of the second rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58);
a planetary gear set (46) that interconnects the first rotor shaft (46r) with the second rotor shaft (84) and configured to enable the first rotor shaft to drive the second rotor shaft at a second speed higher than the first speed (C11 l 56- C12 l 58); and
a housing (96,114) that surrounds the main generator (44), the secondary generator (48), and the planetary gear set (46).
Nagano et al. do not appear to teach the second rotor shaft at a second speed higher than the first speed responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft at the first speed.
Eckert teaches a device rotating the second rotor shaft at a second speed higher than the first speed responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft at the first speed (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. to have the second rotor shaft at a second speed higher than the first speed responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft at the first speed, as Eckert teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to convert energy as wanted (abstract, C5 ll 10-35, C6 ll 10-28 of Eckert).
Regarding claim 2/1, Nagano et al. discloses wherein the planetary gear set (46) comprises: a ring gear (46r) integrally connected to the first rotor shaft and configured to rotate concurrently therewith; a sun gear (46s) integrally connected to the second rotor shaft (84) and configured to rotate concurrently therewith; a plurality of planet gears (parts of 46) configured to engage with the ring gear and the sun gear; and a carrier (46c) connected to each of the plurality of planet gears and fixedly connected to the housing, the carrier configured to maintain the plurality of planet gears in a fixed position while the planet gears rotate about their rotation axis (C11 l 56- C12 l 58).
Regarding claim 4/1, Nagano et al. discloses wherein the planetary gear set (46) comprises: a ring gear (46r) fixedly connected to the housing (96,114) and configured to maintain the ring gear in a fixed position; a sun gear (46s) integrally connected to the second rotor shaft and configured to rotate concurrently therewith; a plurality of planet gears configured to engage with the ring gear and the sun gear; and a carrier (46c) connected to each of plurality planet gears and the first rotor shaft and configured to rotate the plurality of planet gears about their rotation axis responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58).
Regarding claim 7/1, Nagano et al. discloses wherein the planetary gear set (46) is contained within the first rotor shaft (46r,50).
Claim(s) 5,9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Nagano et al.
Regarding claim 5/4, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at three to five times the first speed in a same direction as the first rotor shaft.
However, since Nagano et al. teaches the use of speed reduction mechanism (56,66,68), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at three to five times the first speed in a same direction as the first rotor shaft, since it would be based on the desired running speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at three to five times the first speed in a same direction as the first rotor shaft.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55 of Nagano et al.).
Regarding claim 9/1, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to five times the first speed of the first rotor shaft.
However, since Nagano et al. teaches the use of speed reduction mechanism (56,66,68), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to five times the first speed of the first rotor shaft, since it would be based on the desired running speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to five times the first speed of the first rotor shaft.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55 of Nagano et al.).
Claim(s) 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Bhadra (US 4774440).
Regarding claim 3/2, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to four times the first speed in an opposite direction of the first rotor shaft.
However, since Nagano et al. teaches the use of speed reduction mechanism (56,66,68), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to four times the first speed of the first rotor shaft, since it would be based on the desired running speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55).
Nagano et al. do not teach the shafts rotating in opposite directions.
Bhadra teaches an apparatus having the shafts rotating in opposite directions (C22 ll 58-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to four times the first speed of the first rotor shaft, and have the shafts rotating in opposite directions, as taught by Bhadra.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55 of Nagano et al.) and permit one to move the mass in the desired direction (C9 ll 30-35 of Bhadra).
Claim(s) 6, 11, 13,16,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Savant (US 2010/0052442).
Regarding claim 6/1, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the secondary generator comprises a permanent magnet generator.
Savant teaches a device wherein the secondary generator comprises a permanent magnet generator (para 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert wherein the secondary generator comprises a permanent magnet generator, as Savant teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired power (paras 15-16 of Savant).
Regarding claim 11, Nagano et al. discloses:
An apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a main generator (48, Fig 1) comprising
a first rotor shaft (46r,50) configured to operate at a first speed and generate a first electrical output responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58);
a permanent magnet generator (44) comprising a second rotor shaft (84) located coaxially with the first rotor shaft and configured to generate a second electrical output responsive to rotation of the second rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58);
a planetary gear set (46) that interconnects the first rotor shaft (46r) with the second rotor shaft (84) and configured to enable the first rotor shaft to drive the second rotor shaft at a second speed higher than the first speed (C11 l 56- C12 l 58),
wherein the planetary gear set (46) comprises:
a ring gear (46r) integrally connected to the first rotor shaft and configured to rotate concurrently therewith (Fig 1);
a sun gear (46s) integrally connected to the second rotor shaft (84) and configured to rotate concurrently therewith;
a plurality of planet gears (parts of 46) configured to engage with the ring gear (46r) and the sun gear (46s); and
a carrier (46c) connected to each of the plurality of planet gears and fixedly connected to maintain the plurality of planet gears in a fixed position while the planet gears rotate about their rotation axis (Fig 1); and
a housing (96,114) that surrounds the main generator (44), the secondary generator (48), and the planetary gear set (46).
Nagano et al. do not teach their generator to be a permanent magnet generator (PMG) or the PMG to be surrounded by a housing or the second rotor shaft configured to rotate concurrently therewith at the second speed.
Eckert teaches a machine where the second rotor shaft configured to rotate concurrently therewith at the second speed (claim 1).
Eckert does not teach their generator to be a permanent magnet generator (PMG) or the PMG to be surrounded by a housing.
Savant teaches a device wherein the secondary generator comprises a permanent magnet generator (para 16) and the PMG to be surrounded by a housing (Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. where the second rotor shaft configured to rotate concurrently therewith at the second speed, as Eckert teaches and to have their generator to be a permanent magnet generator (PMG) and the PMG to be surrounded by a housing, as Savant teaches.
The motivation to do so it would permit one to convert energy as wanted (abstract, C5 ll 10-35, C6 ll 10-28 of Eckert) and be based on desired power (paras 15-16 of Savant).
Regarding claim 13/11, Nagano et al. discloses wherein the planetary gear set (46) is contained within the first rotor shaft (46r,50).
Regarding claim 16, Nagano et al. discloses:
An apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a main generator (48, Fig 1) comprising
a first rotor shaft (46r,50) configured to operate at a first speed and generate a first electrical output responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58);
a permanent magnet generator (44) comprising a second rotor shaft (84) located coaxially with the first rotor shaft and configured to generate a second electrical output responsive to rotation of the second rotor shaft (C11 l 56- C12 l 58);
a planetary gear set (46) that interconnects the first rotor shaft (46r) with the second rotor shaft (84) and configured to enable the first rotor shaft to drive the second rotor shaft at a second speed higher than the first speed (C11 l 56- C12 l 58),
wherein the planetary gear set (46) comprises:
a ring gear (46r) fixedly connected to maintain the ring gear in a fixed position (Fig 1);
a sun gear (46s) integrally connected to the second rotor shaft (84) and configured to rotate concurrently therewith;
a plurality of planet gears (parts of 46) configured to engage with the ring gear (46r) and the sun gear (46s); and
a carrier (46c) connected to each of plurality planet gears and the first rotor shaft and configured to rotate the plurality of planet gears about their rotation axis responsive to rotation of the first rotor shaft (Fig 1); and
a housing (96,114) that surrounds the main generator (44), the secondary generator (48), and the planetary gear set (46).
Nagano et al. do not teach their generator to be a permanent magnet generator (PMG) or the PMG to be surrounded by a housing or the second rotor shaft configured to rotate concurrently therewith at the second speed.
Eckert teaches a machine where the second rotor shaft configured to rotate concurrently therewith at the second speed (claim 1).
Eckert does not teach their generator to be a permanent magnet generator (PMG) or the PMG to be surrounded by a housing.
Savant teaches a device wherein the secondary generator comprises a permanent magnet generator (para 16) and the PMG to be surrounded by a housing (Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. to have the second rotor shaft configured to rotate concurrently therewith at the second speed, as Eckert teaches and to have their generator to be a permanent magnet generator (PMG) and the PMG to be surrounded by a housing, as Savant teaches.
The motivation to do so it would permit one to convert energy as wanted (abstract, C5 ll 10-35, C6 ll 10-28 of Eckert) and be based on desired power (paras 15-16 of Savant).
Regarding claim 18/16, Nagano et al. discloses wherein the planetary gear set (46) is contained within the first rotor shaft (46r,50).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Savant (US 2010/0052442), further in view of Nagano et al.
Regarding claim 17/16, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and Savant discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at three to five times the first speed in a same direction as the first rotor shaft.
However, since Nagano et al. teaches the use of speed reduction mechanism (56,66,68), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at three to five times the first speed in a same direction as the first rotor shaft, since it would be based on the desired running speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and Savant wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at three to five times the first speed in a same direction as the first rotor shaft.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55 of Nagano et al.).
Claim(s) 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Savant (US 2010/0052442), further in view of Bhadra (US 4774440).
Regarding claim 12/11, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to four times the first speed in an opposite direction of the first rotor shaft.
However, since Nagano et al. teaches the use of speed reduction mechanism (56,66,68), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to four times the first speed of the first rotor shaft, since it would be based on the desired running speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55).
Nagano et al. do not teach the shafts rotating in opposite directions.
Bhadra teaches an apparatus having the shafts rotating in opposite directions (C22 ll 58-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and Savant to wherein the planetary gear set is configured to drive the second rotor shaft at two to four times the first speed of the first rotor shaft, and have the shafts rotating in opposite directions, as taught by Bhadra.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired speed of the vehicle (C12 ll 25-55 of Nagano et al.) and permit one to move the mass in the desired direction (C9 ll 30-35 of Bhadra).
Claim(s) 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Davis et al. (US 2016/0134171).
Regarding claim 8/1, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the main generator and the secondary generator are associated with an aircraft.
Davis et al. teaches wherein a generator is associated with an aircraft (para 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert wherein a generator is associated with an aircraft, as Davis et al. teaches and have the Nagano et al.’s main generator and the secondary generator do so.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to produce electricity for the aircraft (para 2 of Davis et al.).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Suciu et al. (US 2018/0202368).
Regarding claim 10/1, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the secondary generator is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator.
Suciu et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the secondary generator is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator (para 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert wherein the secondary generator is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator, as Suciu et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired power and efficiency (para 46 of Suciu et al.).
Claim(s) 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Savant (US 2010/0052442), further in view of Davis et al. (US 2016/0134171).
Regarding claim 14/11, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the main generator and the PMG are associated with an aircraft.
Davis et al. teaches wherein a permanent magnet generator is associated with an aircraft (paras 9, 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant wherein a permanent magnet generator is associated with an aircraft, as Davis et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to produce electricity for the aircraft (para 2 of Davis et al.).
Regarding claim 19/16, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the main generator and the PMG are associated with an aircraft.
Davis et al. teaches wherein a permanent magnet generator is associated with an aircraft (paras 9, 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant wherein a permanent magnet generator is associated with an aircraft, as Davis et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to produce electricity for the aircraft (para 2 of Davis et al.).
Claim(s) 15,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 6155364) in view of Eckert (US 9287752), further in view of Savant (US 2010/0052442), further in view of Suciu et al. (US 2018/0202368).
Regarding claim 15/11, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and in view of Savant discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the PMG is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator.
Suciu et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the secondary generator is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator (para 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant wherein the secondary generator is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator, as Suciu et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired power and efficiency (para 46 of Suciu et al.).
Regarding claim 20/16, Nagano et al. in view of Eckert, further in view of Savant discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the PMG is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator.
Suciu et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the generator is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator (para 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Nagano et al. in view of Eckert and further in view of Savant wherein the PMG is configured to provide a higher output frequency than the main generator, as Suciu et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired power and efficiency (para 46 of Suciu et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights