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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species and/or Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2025.10.28. Claims 1 – 20 have been canceled by the 2025.10.28 reply.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 20 have been canceled.
Claims 21 – 27 remain as originally presented.
Claims 28 – 47 have been newly presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 33, 34, 46, and 47 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 33 and 46 recite the limitation “a shape defined by the [magnetic array/first magnetic array] comprises outwardly-facing nodes and gaps between adjacent magnets at the outwardly-facing nodes,” this limitation should be recited as “a shape defined by the [magnetic array/first magnetic array] comprises outwardly-facing nodes and gaps between adjacent magnets
Claim 34 recites the limitation “a shape defined by the [magnetic array/first magnetic array] comprises inwardly-facing nodes and gaps between adjacent magnets at the inwardly-facing nodes,” this limitation should be recited as “a shape defined by the [magnetic array/first magnetic array] comprises inwardly-facing nodes and gaps between adjacent magnets
Appropriate correction is required.
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 33, 34, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 33 and 46 recite the limitation “outwardly-facing nodes and gaps between adjacent magnets at the outwardly-facing nodes,” while claims 34 and 47 recite the limitation “inwardly-facing nodes and gaps between adjacent magnets at the inwardly-facing nodes.” The claims no not specifically identify the structure which is interpreted as forming each of the recited nodes, the claims further introduce a circular interpretation wherein each node appears to define itself by placing each node relative to itself. A review of the specification identifies the outward and inward nodes discussed in at least [0088]; however, the specification fails to clearly define the nodes as labeled in at least Figure 5, as it appears each node is formed as a discrete point formed as the lotion at which each magnet is arranged closest to the respective adjoining magnet. As the claims, and relevant citations of the specification, fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the metes and bounds of each node, an art rejection is not being provided.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3,523,204, “Rand.”
Regarding Claim 21: Rand discloses a magnetic rotor system (Figures 1 – 19) comprising: a first magnetic array (12) comprising magnets (36) arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the first magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 2); and a second magnetic array (14) comprising magnets (38) arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 2); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are not in physical contact with each other (As shown in at least Figure 2; Cl. 2, ln. 70, “It will be apparent that there is no direct mechanical contact between the discs so that there is no mechanical friction between them and none of the noise which generally attends meshed teeth of coupled mechanical gears.”); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are arranged such that when the first magnetic array is rotated, the rotation of the first magnetic array magnetically induces rotation of the second magnetic array (At least Cl. 2, ln. 68, “Thus rotatable load 32 is driven via the transmission system including the two magnetically coupled discs”); wherein the first magnetic array has a first number of polarity changes around the outside of the first magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 2); wherein the second magnetic array has a second number of polarity changes around the outside of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 2); and wherein the second number of polarity changes differs from the first number of polarity changes (As shown in at least Figure 2; The number of magnets, and therefore the number of polarity changes, is shown as being different between each of the first and second magnetic arrays).
Regarding Claim 23: Rand discloses the magnetic rotor system according to claim 21; Rand further discloses wherein the first number of polarity changes is smaller than the second number of polarity changes (As shown in at least Figure 2; The number of polarity changes on array 12 (i.e. the first magnetic array) is shown as being less than the number of polarity changes on array 14), and wherein rotation of the first magnetic array at a first rotational velocity drives rotation of the second magnetic array at a second rotational velocity that is lower than the first rotational velocity (As shown in at least Figure 2; The gearing ratio between the drive member 12 and the driven member 14 are shown such that the driven member will be driven at a second velocity which is lower than that of the first rotational velocity of the drive member 12 in a manner well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 35: Rand discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 21; Rand further discloses wherein the magnets in the magnetic array are arranged in alternating pairs of similar magnetic orientation (As shown in at least Figure 2; The magnets are shown arranged in alternating pairs, formed by adjacent magnets, with common magnetic orientation).
Claim(s) 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 37, 43, 30, 38, 44, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2010089465, “Baron.”
Regarding Claim 21: Baron discloses a magnetic rotor system (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28) comprising: a first magnetic array (As shown arranged on either of wheels 52 or 53) comprising magnets (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28) arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the first magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); and a second magnetic array (As shown arranged on either of wheels 52 or 53) comprising magnets (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28) arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are not in physical contact with each other (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are arranged such that when the first magnetic array is rotated, the rotation of the first magnetic array magnetically induces rotation of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; At least [0147], “the rotation of the driving wheel causes the rotation of the driven wheel, without bearing directly on the magnets, without the magnets touching each other”); wherein the first magnetic array has a first number of polarity changes around the outside of the first magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); wherein the second magnetic array has a second number of polarity changes around the outside of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); and wherein the second number of polarity changes differs from the first number of polarity changes (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The number of magnets, and therefore the number of polarity changes, is shown as being different between each of the first and second magnetic arrays).
Regarding Claim 24: Baron discloses a magnetic rotor (Figures 1 – 63) comprising: a magnetic array (52 or 53) (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28) comprising magnets arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the magnetic array (Each of the wheels 52 and 53 is shown arranged with an array of magnets around the permitter of the wheel with alternating magnetic polarities); wherein at least one magnet in the magnetic array has a magnetic axis and a center point that lies on its magnetic axis (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; Each magnetic is shown with a magnetic axis which is interpreted as the imaginary straight line connecting the north and south poles of each magnet, representing the central line of its magnetic field as shown relative to the indicated poles), wherein the magnetic axis is angled with respect to a radius extending from an axis of rotation of the magnetic array to the center point of the at least one magnet (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The magnetic poles are shown such that their arrangement indicates the magnetic axis aligned tangential to the wheel such that the axis is closer to 90° to a radius extending from the indicated center point of each respective wheel).
Regarding Claim 25: Baron discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 24; Baron further discloses wherein the magnets in the magnetic array form a star shape (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The multi-toothed arrangement of each wheel 52 and 53 is broadly interpreted as being arranged in the shape of a star).
Regarding Claim 27: Baron discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 24; Baron further discloses wherein the magnets in the magnetic array are arranged in alternating pairs of similar magnetic orientation (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The magnets are shown arranged in alternating pairs with common magnetic orientation).
Regarding Claims 29, 37, and 43: Baron discloses the magnetic rotor according to claims 21, 24, and 39; Baron further discloses wherein the at least one magnet has one side that is straight and an opposite side that is curved (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The magnets are shown arranged with a flat side facing radially inward (i.e. towards the center of the wheel) and with a curved side which is opposite (i.e. the portion of the magnet indicated with the poles is interpreted as forming a curved surface), a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation curved reads over the disclosed configuration as the configuration clearly discloses a non-flat surface which is arranged in a manner interpreted as being opposite the curved surface)).
Regarding Claims 30, 38, and 44: Baron discloses the magnetic rotor according to claims 29, 37, and 43; Baron further discloses wherein the at least one magnet is arranged in the magnetic array so that its curved side faces inwardly and its straight side faces outwardly (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The magnets are shown with the curved surface shown arranged such that points of the curved surface, on the interior portion of the surface, can broadly be interpreted as facing towards the center point of the wheels, whereas points of the flat surface, on the interior portion of the surface, can broadly be interpreted as facing away from the center point of the wheels). It is noted the terms inwardly and outwardly are broadly presented by the claim and not defined relative to other features of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 39: Baron discloses a magnetic rotor system (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28) comprising: a first magnetic array (As shown arranged on either of wheels 52 or 53) comprising magnets (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28) arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the first magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); and a second magnetic array (As shown arranged on either of wheels 52 or 53) comprising magnets arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are not in physical contact with each other (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are arranged such that when one of the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array is rotated, the rotation induces rotation of the other of the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; At least [0147], “the rotation of the driving wheel causes the rotation of the driven wheel, without bearing directly on the magnets, without the magnets touching each other”); and wherein at least one magnet in the first magnetic array has a magnetic axis and a center point that lies on its magnetic axis (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; Each magnetic is shown with a magnetic axis which is interpreted as the imaginary straight line connecting the north and south poles of each magnet, representing the central line of its magnetic field as shown relative to the indicated poles), wherein the magnetic axis is angled with respect to a radius extending from an axis of rotation of the first magnetic array to the center point of the at least one magnet (As shown in at least Figures 26 – 28; The magnetic poles are shown such that their arrangement indicates the magnetic axis aligned tangential to the wheel such that the axis is closer to 90° to a radius extending from the indicated center point of each respective wheel).
Claim(s) 24, 26, 31, 32, 39, 40, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2004/0041479, “French.”
Regarding Claim 24: French discloses a magnetic rotor (Figure 7A) comprising: a magnetic array (Either of the arrays formed by the orthogonal discs as shown in at least Figure 7A) comprising magnets arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 7A); wherein at least one magnet in the magnetic array has a magnetic axis and a center point that lies on its magnetic axis (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A), wherein the magnetic axis is angled with respect to a radius extending from an axis of rotation of the magnetic array to the center point of the at least one magnet (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The magnetic poles are shown such that their arrangement indicates the magnetic axis aligned tangential to the wheel such that the axis is closer to 90° to a radius extending from the indicated center point of each respective wheel).
PNG
media_image1.png
1332
1302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A: Features of French
Regarding Claim 26: French discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 24; French further discloses wherein the magnets in the magnetic array form a non-convex polygon (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are greater than 180°. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.).
Regarding Claim 31: French discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 24; French further discloses wherein the magnets in the magnetic array are arranged such that a shape defined by the magnetic array comprises at least one interior reflex angle (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are greater than 180°, wherein a reflex angle is an angle which measures between 180° degrees and 360° degrees exclusive. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.).
Regarding Claim 32: French discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 24; French further discloses wherein the magnets in the magnetic array are arranged such that a shape defined by the magnetic array comprises interior angles that alternate between angles less than 180 degrees (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure B; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are less than 180°. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.) and angles more than 180 degrees around a perimeter of the magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are greater than 180°, wherein a reflex angle is an angle which measures between 180° degrees and 360° degrees exclusive. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.).
PNG
media_image2.png
758
1427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B: Alternative Interior Angle of French
Regarding Claim 39: French discloses a magnetic rotor system (Figure 7A) comprising: a first magnetic array (Either of the arrays formed by the orthogonal discs as shown in at least Figure 7A) comprising magnets arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the first magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 7A); and a second magnetic array (Either of the other of the arrays formed by the orthogonal discs as shown in at least Figure 7A) comprising magnets arranged to provide alternating polarity around the outside of the second magnetic array (As shown in at least Figure 7A); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are not in physical contact with each other (As shown in at least Figure 7A); wherein the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are arranged such that when one of the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array is rotated, the rotation induces rotation of the other of the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array ([0072], “The magnets 16 can be oriented into any position so that when the primary shaft 12 is rotated the secondary shaft/s 14 are caused to rotate due to attractive or repulsive magnetic forces.”); and wherein at least one magnet in the first magnetic array has a magnetic axis and a center point that lies on its magnetic axis (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A), wherein the magnetic axis is angled with respect to a radius extending from an axis of rotation of the first magnetic array to the center point of the at least one magnet (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The magnetic poles are shown such that their arrangement indicates the magnetic axis aligned tangential to the wheel such that the axis is closer to 90° to a radius extending from the indicated center point of each respective wheel).
Regarding Claim 40: French discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 39; French further discloses wherein the magnets in the first magnetic array form a non-convex polygon (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are greater than 180°. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.), and the magnets in the second magnetic array also form a non-convex polygon (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are greater than 180°. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.).
Regarding Claim 45: French discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 39; French further discloses wherein the magnets in the first magnetic array are arranged such that a shape defined by the first magnetic array comprises at least one interior reflex angle (As shown in at least Figure 7A and Annotated Figure A; The outward facing surfaces of the magnetic poles of adjacent magnetic elements are shown arranged such that their outward facing surfaces form the shape of a polygon which has interior angles, α, which are greater than 180°, wherein a reflex angle is an angle which measures between 180° degrees and 360° degrees exclusive. It is noted that this interpretation over extensions of outward facing surfaces of magnetic poles is viewed as the same as that disclosed by at least Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application.).
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) 28 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010089465, “Baron.”
Regarding Claim 28: Baron discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 24; however, Baron fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnets in the magnetic array are arranged in alternating groups of three or more magnets, wherein the magnets within each group have a similar magnetic orientation (In the embodiment of Figures 26 – 28). However, Baron teaches arrangement of interacting magnetic arrays which comprise alternating groups of three or more magnets (i.e. arrays with magnets arranged in quantities divisible by three) in at least Figures 1, 3, 5, 10, such an arrangement is resultant in the diameter of the magnetic array such that a modification in the size of the diameter is capable of resulting in an array which comprises alternating groups of three or more magnets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the magnetic array of Baron such that the array comprises alternating groups of three or more magnets as such a modification is viewed as a modification of a result effective variable of the relationship between the outer diameter and the number of magnets of the array. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B))
Regarding Claim 36: Baron discloses the magnetic rotor according to claim 21; however, Baron fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnets in the first magnetic array are arranged in alternating groups of three or more magnets, wherein the magnets within each group have a similar magnetic orientation (In the embodiment of Figures 26 – 28). However, Baron teaches arrangement of interacting magnetic arrays which comprise alternating groups of three or more magnets (i.e. arrays with magnets arranged in quantities divisible by three) in at least Figures 1, 3, 5, 10, such an arrangement is resultant in the diameter of the magnetic array such that a modification in the size of the diameter is capable of resulting in an array which comprises alternating groups of three or more magnets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the magnetic array of Baron such that the array comprises alternating groups of three or more magnets as such a modification is viewed as a modification of a result effective variable of the relationship between the outer diameter and the number of magnets of the array. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B))
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,523,204, “Rand.”
Regarding Claim 22: Rand discloses the magnetic rotor system according to claim 21; however, Rand discloses the arrangement of Claim 23 which utilizes the opposite orientation of input and output arrays as those of the instant claim such that Rand fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first number of polarity changes is greater than the second number of polarity changes, and wherein rotation of the first magnetic array at a first rotational velocity drives rotation of the second magnetic array at a second rotational velocity that is higher than the first rotational velocity. However, Rand teaches the use of varying gear ratio arrangements for use in such an apparatus as shown through at least Figures 1, and 3 – 19. It is well known in the art that the variation of such ratios will dictate the gear ratio of the apparatus, thus controlling the output speed based on the input speed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gear ratio of the arrangement of Rand, including the arrangement as shown in Figure 2, such that the first rotational velocity would be lower than the second rotational velocity. It is further noted that the modification of the ratio is viewed as a result effective variable (as taught by Rand in at least Cl. 1, ln. 59 – 72). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41 and 42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Baron discloses the arrangement of claim 39; however, Baron fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the magnets in the first magnetic array form a non-convex polygon, and the magnets in the second magnetic array form a convex polygon.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2025.12.07
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 1/7/2026