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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendment to claims 1, 8, and 15 to recite the voltage-to-frequency converter and the receiving/providing of three-phase sinusoidal power as a predetermined waveform is acknowledged. In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) over Petersen is withdrawn, because Petersen's motor is direct-current and Petersen does not disclose the newly recited voltage-to-frequency converter. However, claims 1-21 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth above, in which Petersen is combined with Swamy for the voltage-to-frequency converter and related features.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 9) that Petersen teaches away from the use of an alternating-current source, citing Petersen's statement that, if an alternating-current source is not available, the motor may be operated from a source of direct current. This argument is not persuasive. Petersen's statement that, "if an alternating current source is not available, such as is often the case in rural districts," a direct-current-operated motor-generator set may be provided (Petersen, col. 1, ll. 11-19) presupposes alternating current as the ordinary source and merely offers direct-current operation as an alternative for the contingency in which alternating current is unavailable. A reference that discloses an alternative for particular circumstances does not thereby criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed approach, and therefore does not teach away from it. See MPEP §§ 2123, 2145; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Moreover, the present rejection does not rely on Petersen alone for the alternating-current and voltage-to-frequency-converter features; those features are supplied by Swamy, and the proposed combination drives Petersen's motor with a controlled, variable-frequency sinusoidal waveform — an operation that Petersen's contingency statement does not disparage.
Applicant further argues that the dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to the independent claims; the dependent claims stand rejected as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "three power supply conductors connected to the VDC to conduct a power supply current provided by the VDC and generate three respective power supply magnetic fields." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the VDC" in the claim. The claim previously recites "a voltage-to-frequency converter (VFC)" and does not recite a "VDC." It is therefore unclear whether "the VDC" is intended to refer to the previously recited voltage-to-frequency converter (VFC) or to a separate, undefined component. For purposes of examination, and consistent with the specification, which describes the power supply conductors 12A-12C as connected to and conducting power provided by the VFC 80 (Spec. ¶¶ [0037], [0046]), "the VDC" is interpreted as referring to the voltage-to-frequency converter (VFC). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and incorporating the same indefiniteness.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites, following the limitation "means for converting the power supply current to movement of the movable output component," a further limitation: "conducting a power supply current that generates three respective power supply magnetic fields." This limitation is indefinite for at least two reasons. First, the limitation is not recited in means-plus-function form and does not otherwise recite structure; it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to recite an additional "means for conducting ...," whether it is a duplicate of the previously recited "means for conducting a power supply current that generates three respective power supply magnetic fields," or whether it was inadvertently included. Second, claim 15 is an apparatus claim, and the recitation of an active method step ("conducting ...") within an apparatus claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is made or when the recited step is performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 16-21 are rejected as depending from claim 15 and incorporating the same indefiniteness.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERSEN(US1978688) in view of SWAMY(US9853587B2).
Regarding claim 1, Petersen teaches a system for transferring electric power comprising (motor-generator set 10 supplying electric power to a load; col. 1, ll. 20-30; col. 2, ll. 61-65):
a housing (col. 2, ll. 72-82; motor end bells 16, 18 and hollow extension portion 20 forming the structural housing of the unit);
a shaft movably mounted to the housing (col. 2, ll. 78-82; shaft 26 journalled in bearings in end bell 16 and hollow extension 20, mounted for rotation relative to the housing);
an electric motor having ... a movable output component, the electric motor being configured to convert the power supply current to movement of the movable output component (col. 2, ll. 65-82; motor 12, armature 27 on shaft 26; motor converts supplied current into rotation of shaft 26 = movable output component);
a generator having a movable input component connected to the movable output component such that the movable output component causes movement of the movable input component, and a power output terminal, the generator being configured to convert the movement of the movable input component into a power output current to the power output terminal that generates a generator magnetic field that is uncoupled from the power supply magnetic field (col. 1, ll. 20-30; col. 2, ll. 61-82, 113-117; FIG. 5; magneto generator 14, rotating element 25 on shaft 26; shaft rotation drives element 25; generator output current to terminal serving load 46; motor and generator connected only mechanically through common shaft 26, no electrical connection — generator field uncoupled from power supply field);
wherein the movable output component and the movable input component are parts of the shaft (col. 2, ll. 78-82; motor armature 27 and generator rotating element 25 both on common shaft 26);
wherein the motor includes a motor stator mounted to the housing and a motor rotor mounted to the shaft (col. 2, ll. 65-82; motor field fixed to housing; motor armature/rotor 27 on shaft 26);
and wherein the generator includes a generator stator mounted to the housing and a generator rotor mounted to the shaft (col. 2, ll. 82-95; magneto pole shoes 28 embedded in walls of hollow extension 20 = generator stator; generator rotating element 25 on shaft 26).
Petersen does not explicitly teach a controller; a voltage-to-frequency converter (VFC), connected to the controller, for receiving three-phase sinusoidal power; three power supply conductors connected to the VDC to conduct a power supply current provided by the VDC and generate three respective power supply magnetic fields (the "VDC" interpreted as the VFC, see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above); three power input terminals connected to the power supply conductors, respectively; or the VFC providing the three-phase sinusoidal power as a predetermined waveform with the controller controlling power provided by the VFC over the power supply conductors.
However, Swamy teaches a controller (¶¶ [0030]-[0032]; FIG. 2; controller 34 controlling the variable frequency drive);
a voltage-to-frequency converter (VFC), connected to the controller, for receiving three-phase sinusoidal power (¶¶ [0029]-[0030]; FIG. 1; variable frequency drive (VFD) 14 having AC/DC converter 18 = full-wave bridge rectifier connected to receive three-phase AC power on terminals R, S, T; VFD 14 operated by controller 34);
three power supply conductors connected to the [VFC] to conduct a power supply current provided by the [VFC] and generate three respective power supply magnetic fields (¶¶ [0029]-[0031]; FIG. 1; inverter 22 output terminals U, V, W connected by three conductors to three-phase motor 16; three-phase output currents energize the three stator windings and generate three respective stator magnetic fields);
three power input terminals connected to the power supply conductors, respectively (¶ [0029]; FIG. 1; motor terminals T1, T2, T3 connected respectively to inverter output terminals U, V, W);
and the VFC providing the three-phase sinusoidal power as a predetermined waveform with the controller controlling power provided by the VFC over the power supply conductors (¶¶ [0030]-[0032]; FIGS. 1-2; PWM inverter 22 controlled by controller 34, pulse width varied so the average voltage at the motor is a sine wave of a selected frequency = predetermined sinusoidal waveform; controller 34 varies frequency and thereby controls power delivered over conductors U, V, W).
Swamy is analogous art, being in the same field of endeavor of electric motor drive and control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the motor of Petersen's motor-generator set with the three-phase voltage-to-frequency converter, three power supply conductors, three motor input terminals, and controller of Swamy, as recited. One would be motivated to do this in order to manage and optimize operation of the electric motor by supplying it with a controlled, variable-frequency sinusoidal waveform, thereby enabling variable-speed control and optimal utilization of the drive, as expressly taught by Swamy (¶¶ [0031], [0047]). Such a combination is no more than the use of a known motor-drive technique (Swamy's variable frequency drive) to improve a known device (Petersen's motor-generator set) in the same way it improves other motor drives, yielding the predictable result of controlled, variable-speed operation of the motor. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Petersen teaches a method of transferring electric power comprising (operating motor-generator set 10 to supply power to load 46; col. 1, ll. 20-30; col. 2, ll. 61-65, 113-117):
converting the power supply current to movement of the movable output component (col. 2, ll. 65-82; motor 12 converts supplied current into rotation of shaft 26);
converting the movement into a second electric current that generates a generator magnetic field that is uncoupled from the power supply magnetic field (col. 1, ll. 20-30; col. 2, ll. 61-82; generator 14 converts shaft rotation into output current; motor and generator connected only mechanically through shaft 26 — generator field uncoupled from power supply field);
wherein the movable output component and the movable input component are parts of a shaft, wherein the motor includes a motor stator mounted to the housing and a motor rotor mounted to the shaft, and wherein the generator includes a generator stator mounted to the housing and a generator rotor mounted to the shaft (col. 2, ll. 78-95; armature 27 and generator element 25 on common shaft 26; motor field on housing, armature 27 on shaft; magneto pole shoes 28 on housing, generator element 25 on shaft).
Petersen does not explicitly teach "receiving three-phase sinusoidal power"; "conducting a power supply current that generates three respective power supply magnetic fields"; or "controlling the power supply current by providing the three-phase sinusoidal power as a predetermined waveform." Petersen is silent as to these steps because its motor 12 is direct-current and is operated from a storage battery or direct-current system (col. 2, ll. 65-72), without alternating-current input or frequency-converting drive circuitry.
However, Swamy teaches receiving three-phase sinusoidal power (¶¶ [0029]-[0030]; FIG. 1; full-wave bridge rectifier 18 receiving three-phase AC on terminals R, S, T);
conducting a power supply current that generates three respective power supply magnetic fields (¶¶ [0029]-[0031]; three-phase currents on conductors U, V, W energizing three stator windings, generating three respective stator fields);
and controlling the power supply current by providing the three-phase sinusoidal power as a predetermined waveform (¶¶ [0030]-[0032]; controller 34 and PWM inverter 22 providing a sine-wave output of a selected frequency). The same rationale and motivation set forth above with respect to claim 1 apply. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claim 15, Petersen in view of Swamy teaches a system for transferring electric power comprising the recited means-plus-function limitations, the prior art disclosing the corresponding structures identified above or their art-recognized equivalents:
means for receiving three-phase sinusoidal power (Swamy ¶¶ [0029]-[0030]; VFD 14 / converter 18 receiving three-phase AC — equivalent structure to VFC 80);
means for conducting a power supply current that generates three respective power supply magnetic fields (Swamy ¶¶ [0029]-[0031]; conductors U, V, W carrying three-phase currents — equivalent to conductors 12A-12C);
means for converting the power supply current to movement of the movable output component (Petersen col. 2, ll. 65-82; motor 12, armature 27 on shaft 26 — equivalent to motor 16, stator 52, rotor 54);
means for controlling the power supply current by providing the three-phase sinusoidal power as a predetermined waveform (Swamy ¶¶ [0030]-[0032]; controller 34 and PWM inverter 22 — equivalent to controller 84/VFC 80);
means for converting the movement into a second electric current that generates a generator magnetic field that is uncoupled from the power supply magnetic field (Petersen col. 1, ll. 20-30; col. 2, ll. 61-82; magneto generator 14, rotating element 25 on shaft 26 — equivalent to generator 18, stator 62, rotor 64);
wherein the movable output component and the movable input component are parts of a shaft, wherein the motor includes a motor stator mounted to the housing and a motor rotor mounted to the shaft, and wherein the generator includes a generator stator mounted to the housing and a generator rotor mounted to the shaft (Petersen col. 2, ll. 78-95).
The recitation "conducting a power supply current that generates three respective power supply magnetic fields" (rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) is, to the extent it can be construed, taught by Swamy for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the "means for conducting a power supply current" limitation. The rationale and motivation to combine Petersen and Swamy set forth above with respect to claim 1 apply equally to claim 15. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Petersen in view of Swamy teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Petersen further teaches wherein the shaft is rotatably mounted to the housing (col. 2, ll. 78-82; shaft 26 journalled in bearings in end bell 16 and hollow extension 20, free to rotate relative to the housing).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Petersen in view of Swamy teaches the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18, respectively.
Petersen further teaches first and second shaft bearings rotatably mounting the shaft to the housing with the electric motor and the generator between the first and second shaft bearings (col. 1, ll. 35-40; col. 2, ll. 78-82; a first bearing in end bell 16 at the motor end and a second bearing in hollow extension 20 at the generator end; motor armature 27 and generator rotating element 25 on shaft 26 located between the two bearings).
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERSEN(US1978688) in view of SWAMY(US9853587B2), and further in view of BEDINI(US 2002/0097013A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Petersen in view of Swamy teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Petersen in view Swamy does not explicitly teach wherein the motor stator includes at least one motor coil that generates a motor coil magnetic field; and wherein the motor rotor includes at least one motor permanent magnet that is located in the motor coil magnetic field.
However, Bedini teaches wherein the motor stator includes at least one motor coil that generates a motor coil magnetic field (¶¶ [0074], [0078]; input coils 22a, 22b wound on iron bars 20a, 20b; energized coils generate a magnetic field at pole pieces 19a, 19b); and wherein the motor rotor includes at least one motor permanent magnet that is located in the motor coil magnetic field (¶¶ [0073]-[0074], [0078]; rotor 16 carrying rotor permanent magnets 17 in apposition with pole pieces 19a, 19b, located in the coil-generated field).
Bedini is analogous art, being in the same field of endeavor of electric machines (permanent-magnet motor-generators). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the motor stator and rotor of Petersen in view of Swamy with at least one stator coil that generates a magnetic field and a permanent-magnet rotor located in that field, as taught by Bedini, in order to provide brushless, efficient electromechanical energy conversion (Bedini, ¶¶ [0073]-[0074]). Such a combination is the application of a known permanent-magnet machine construction to the known motor of Petersen to yield the predictable result of a functioning brushless permanent-magnet motor. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Petersen in view of Swamy and further in view of Bedini teaches the subject matter of claims 2, 9, and 16, respectively.
Bedini further teaches wherein the generator rotor includes at least one generator permanent magnet that has a generator permanent magnet magnetic field (¶ [0078]; rotor 16 carrying permanent magnets 17 producing a permanent-magnet field as the rotor rotates); and wherein the generator stator includes at least one generator coil that is located in the generator permanent magnet magnetic field (¶¶ [0074], [0078]; output coils 23a, 23b superimposed on bars 20a, 20b, located in the field of rotor magnets 17, in which current is induced as the rotor rotates).
It would have been obvious, for the same reason of providing efficient permanent-magnet electromechanical conversion, to construct the generator rotor and stator of Petersen in view of Swamy with a permanent-magnet rotor and a stator coil located in the permanent-magnet field, as taught by Bedini. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
10. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERSEN(US 1978688) in view of SWAMY(US9853587B2), and further in view of DEVOL(US2355208).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Petersen in view of Swamy teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Petersen in view of Swamy does not explicitly teach a push fan; and a pull fan, the push fan and the pull fan being mounted in positions so that air flows sequentially over the push fan, then over a unit that includes the electric motor and the generator, and then over the pull fan.
However, Devol teaches a push fan ... and a pull fan ... mounted in positions so that air flows sequentially ... over a unit that includes the electric motor and the generator (col. 3, ll. 70-75; col. 4, ll. 5-45; FIGS. 1-2; booster fan 70 on the outer end of common shaft 13 and centrifugal supercharger blower fan 68 on shaft 13; air drawn in through louvers 69 sequentially over generator 12 and engine/motor 10 and discharged through louvers 73a; the two shaft-mounted fans drive sequential cooling airflow over the motor-generator unit).
Devol is analogous art, being in the same field of endeavor of motor-generator sets and the cooling of electric machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the motor-generator set of Petersen in view of Swamy with two shaft-mounted fans arranged to drive cooling air sequentially over the motor and generator, as taught by Devol, in order to provide efficient forced-air cooling of the motor and generator assembly (Devol, col. 4, ll. 5-45). Such a combination is the application of a known cooling arrangement to a known motor-generator set to yield the predictable result of improved cooling. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
11. Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETERSEN(US1978688) in view of SWAMY(US9853587B2), and further in view of DU PUY(US3617851).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Petersen in view of Swamy teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Petersen in view of Swamy does not explicitly teach a resistor load; a controller; and a switching circuit that is connected to the controller, the controller being operable to switch the switching circuit between a charging configuration wherein the power output terminal is connectable to a battery to charge the battery and the battery is disconnected from the resistor load, and a discharging configuration wherein the output terminal is disconnected from the battery and the battery is connected to the resistor load to discharge the battery.
However, Du Puy teaches a resistor load (col. 3, ll. 1-16; load resistor 53 connectable across charger output terminals 24, 26); a controller (col. 2, ll. 50-75; control circuit 11 / current signal amplifier 32 controlling the cyclical charge and discharge operation); and a switching circuit ... operable to switch ... between a charging configuration wherein the power output terminal is connectable to a battery to charge the battery and the battery is disconnected from the resistor load, and a discharging configuration wherein the output terminal is disconnected from the battery and the battery is connected to the resistor load (col. 2, ll. 60-75; col. 3, ll. 1-16; FIG. 1; relay comprising coil 50 and contact sets 12, 52 operated by control circuit 11; during the charging period coil 50 is energized, opening contact 52 to disconnect load resistor 53 while the SCRs 20 conduct to charge battery 27 via terminals 24, 26; during the discharging period coil 50 is de-energized, closing contact 52 to connect load resistor 53 across battery 27 while the SCRs are held nonconducting to disconnect the output).
Du Puy is analogous art, being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of charging and resistively discharging a battery from a power source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the resistor load, controller, and charge/discharge switching circuit of Du Puy into the motor-generator power system of Petersen in view of Swamy, in order to enable controlled battery charging from the generator power output and rapid resistive discharging for battery testing and conditioning, with a reasonable expectation of success (Du Puy, col. 1, ll. 1-30; col. 3-4). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights