DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 17 October 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-13 are now pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 17 October 2024 was/were filed before mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a “use” of a device rather than the device itself or any method of operating the device.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a magnetic material such as FeSi, FeNi or FeCo…”. The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robert (US 2012/0280777 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Robert”.
Regarding claim 1, Robert discloses a rotating transformer [400] intended to be installed around a shaft [401] movable in rotation (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0034-0036), the rotating transformer [400] consisting of a plurality of outer stator annular sectors [407,408] and a plurality of inner rotor annular sectors [405,406] (fig. 5; ¶ 0035),
the juxtaposition over 360° of these outer stator [407,408] and inner rotor annular sectors [405,406] forming an outer stator ring [404] and an inner rotor ring [403] consisting of elementary stator and rotor magnetic circuits (fig. 5; ¶ 0034-0035),
each of the elementary stator magnetic circuits including an outer magnetic core [407,408] and a first electrical winding [507,508] and each of the elementary rotor magnetic circuits including an inner magnetic core [405,406] and a second electrical winding [505,506] (fig. 5; ¶ 0038) to allow a transfer of electrical energy by electro-magnetic induction between the outer stator [404] and inner rotor rings [403] (¶ 0002, 0009), the inner [405,406] and outer magnetic cores [407,408] being mounted concentrically and separated by two axial air gaps [513,514] present on either side of the inner magnetic core [405,406] (fig. 5; ¶ 0039-0040),
PNG
media_image1.png
505
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
characterized in that at least the outer magnetic cores [407,408] have expansions [407e,408e] at the level of each of the two air gaps [513,514] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0039-0040) to avoid a discontinuity of the magnetic field lines during the rotation of the movable shaft [401] (this statement of the intended use of the expansions does not impose any additional structural or functional limitations) and in that the inner rotor annular sectors [405,406] are identical and interchangeable with each other (fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 2, Robert discloses the rotating transformer [400] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the outer stator annular sectors [407,408] are identical and interchangeable with each other (fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Robert discloses the rotating transformer [400] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the outer stator annular sectors [407,408] are electrically interconnected with each other by interconnection parts [516-E,516-F] (fig. 5; ¶ 0041) accessible for the mounting/dismounting through circumferential access hatches (fig. 7; ¶ 0046; hatches/openings are visible at junction surface [701]).
Regarding claim 5, Robert discloses the rotating transformer [400] according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the inner rotor annular sectors [405,406] are electrically interconnected with each other (fig. 5; ¶ 0041; inputs/outputs [516-E, 516-F] interconnect both the rotor and stator sectors) and accessible for the mounting/dismounting through the circumferential access hatches (fig. 7; ¶ 0046; hatches/openings are visible at junction surface [702]).
Regarding claim 13, Robert discloses a use of a rotating transformer [400] according to claim 1, as stated above, for the electrical de-icing of the propeller airfoils of an aircraft turbomachine (¶ 0003; while the function of de-icing is disclosed by Robert, this claim recites only the intended use of the rotating transformer, and imposes no additional structural or functional limitations beyond those recited in claim 1, and is thus rejected on the same grounds).
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 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.
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) 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Mollon et al. (US 2017/0005541 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Mollon”.
Regarding claim 3, Robert discloses the rotating transformer [400] according to claim 1, as stated above. Robert does not disclose that the number of the elementary stator and rotor magnetic circuits per annular sector is not identical to the stator and to the rotor (this limitation is interpreted as referring to the number of poles on the stator and on the rotor being unequal to one another).
Mollon discloses a rotating transformer [5] comprising a rotor [9] and a stator [8] each having a number of elementary magnetic circuits (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0034, 0044-0045; the number of circuits is equal to the number of poles on the rotor/stator), wherein the number of the elementary stator and rotor magnetic circuits per annular sector is not identical to the stator and to the rotor (fig. 2; ¶ 0044-0045; the stator has four poles/circuits while the rotor has nineteen poles/circuits).
PNG
media_image2.png
569
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rotor and stator of Robert having different numbers of rotor and stator magnetic circuits as taught by Mollon, in order to reduce the noise generated during operation (¶ 0006-0007).
Regarding claim 6, Robert discloses the rotating transformer [400] according to claim 1, as stated above. Robert does not disclose that the inner [405,406] and outer magnetic cores [407,408] are formed of a stack of laminations, wound laminations or a block of magnetic powder.
Mollon discloses a rotating transformer [5] comprising a rotor [9] and a stator [8] formed of an inner magnetic core [58] and an outer magnetic core [69] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0044-0045), wherein the inner magnetic core [58] and the outer magnetic core [69] are formed of a stack of laminations, wound laminations or a block of magnetic powder (fig. 1; ¶ 0003, 0012; both rotor and stator are disclosed as formed of a “stack of plates” which have coils wound around them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the magnetic cores of Robert from stacks of laminations as taught by Mollon, in order to reduce eddy currents in the cores thereby reducing the stray magnetic flux and iron losses.
Regarding claim 7, Robert, in view of Mollon, discloses the rotating transformer [400] according to claim 6, as stated above, wherein the stack of laminations is in the form of packets of laminations of a magnetic material (the rotor/stator are described throughout the reference as being “magnetic” or having “magnetic poles) such as FeSi, FeNi or FeCo, the wound laminations in the form of magnetic material of the amorphous or nanocrystalline type, and the magnetic powder block in the form of amorphous powder (it is unclear whether or not the limitations following the phrase “such as” are part of the claimed invention; see MPEP § 2173.05(d); thus these limitations have been interpreted as not being further limiting).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-12 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the rotating transformer according to claim 1, wherein the outer magnetic core has a C or U shape ending with the expansions at the level of the air gap and the inner magnetic core has an H shape defining the expansions at the level of the air gap or an I shape without expansions.
While the prior art discloses various arrangements and shapes of the magnetic cores, poles, and pole shoes, it does not disclose the specific arrangement recited above in combination with the preceding limitations. As such, the core shapes recited above, as shown in figures 3-6 of the application, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Patel et al. (US 2018/0358877 A1) discloses a rotating transformer comprising an outer stator formed by a plurality of outer annular sectors of wound cores and an inner rotor formed by an inner annular sector of wound cores mounted on a movable shaft.
Ueda et al. (US 2018/0198332 A1) discloses a rotary transformer comprising an outer stator formed by a plurality of outer annular sectors of wound cores and an inner rotor formed by a plurality of inner annular sectors of wound cores mounted on a movable shaft, wherein three rotors/stators are arranged axially adjacent to one another.
Gieras et al. (US 2011/0062833 A1) discloses an outer stator formed by a plurality of outer annular sectors of wound cores and an inner rotor formed by an inner annular sector of wound cores, wherein the number of cores on the rotor is not identical to the number of cores on the stator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 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 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://pair-direct.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights