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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1, 10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (DE102016219826).
As to independent claim 1, Nakajima teaches an electric drive comprising: a stator (100) and a rotor (200) and a plurality of coils of a winding (140), wherein the stator (100) has a toroidal coil carrier (120) with an axis of rotation (see figure 4) and the toroidal coil carrier (120) has a cross-sectional area (120) of an ellipse, in particular of a circle, the coils of the winding (140) being wound around sections (see figure 4) of the toroidal coil carrier (120) as shown in figures 1-4.
As to claim 10/1, Nakajima teaches comprising - exactly one stator (100) and exactly one rotor (200), or exactly two stators and exactly one rotor a shown in figure 1-4.
As to claim 12, Nakajima teaches wherein the stator (100) surrounds the rotor (200) or wherein the rotor (1) surrounds the stator (2) as shown in figure 1.
As to claim 13/1, Nakajima teaches wherein the rotor (200) is a radial flux rotor or an axial flux rotor as shown in figure 1
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) 2-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (DE102016219826) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano (JP 2006254619).
As to claim 2/1, Nakajami teaches wherein the stator (100) has structure (132), and wherein the coils of the winding are applied between the core (110) around the sections () of the toroidal coil carrier (120) as shown in figures 1-4 .
However Nakajami the claimed limitation as discussed above except the structure is a lamellae with a plurality of lamellae.
Asano teaches the claimed limitation as dissed above except the structure (2) is a lamellae with a plurality of lamellae (see paragraph [0016]), for the advantageous benefit of improving the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improving the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami by using the structure is a lamellae with a plurality of lamellae, as taught by Asano, to improve the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improve the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
As to claim 3/2, Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as disscused above except wherein the lamellae extend in a direction of the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier over a greater length than the toroidal coil carrier.
However Asano teaches wherein the lamellae (see paragraph [0016]) extend in a direction of the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier (see figure 8) over a greater length than the toroidal coil carrier as shown in figure 8, for the advantageous benefit of improving the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improving the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using the lamellae extend in a direction of the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier over a greater length than the toroidal coil carrier, as taught by Asano, to improve the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improve the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
As to claim 5/3, Nakajami teaches wherein the structure (132) is adapted as a toroidal body, and wherein the structure (132) are sections of the toroidal body and between these sections there are intermediate spaces for the coils of the winding (140) as shown in figure 1-4.
However Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as discussed above except the structure is lamellae.
Asano teaches the claimed limitation as dissed above except the structure (2) is a lamellae (see paragraph [0016]), for the advantageous benefit of improving the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improving the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using the structure is a lamellae, as taught by Asano, to improve the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improve the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
As to claim 6/5, Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier is identical to the axis of rotation of the toroidal body of the lamella structure.
However Asano teaches the axis of rotation (see figure 8) of the toroidal coil carrier (120) is identical to the axis of rotation (see figure 8) of the toroidal body of the lamella (see paragraph [0016]) structure as shown in figure 8, for the advantageous benefit of improving the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improving the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier is identical to the axis of rotation of the toroidal body of the lamella structure, as taught by Asano, to improve the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improve the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (DE102016219826) and Asano (JP 2006254619)as applied in claim 3 above, and further in view of Nose (JP2000050550).
As to claim 4/3, Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the lamellae extend in the direction of the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier over a length at least twice as long, in particular at least three times as long, as the toroidal coil carrier.
However Nose teaches the lamellae (14) extend in the direction of the axis of rotation (see figures 3 and 5) of the toroidal coil carrier (5) over a length at least twice as long, in particular at least three times as long, as the toroidal coil carrier (5) as shown in figures 3 and 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a power factor by toroidally winding a primary coil and a shading coil on a core of a stationary armature, thereby making a generated magnetic field close to a sine wave.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using the lamellae extend in the direction of the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier over a length at least twice as long, in particular at least three times as long, as the toroidal coil carrier, as taught by Nose, to improve a power factor by toroidally winding a primary coil and a shading coil on a core of a stationary armature, thereby making a generated magnetic field close to a sine wave.
As to claim 7/5, Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the toroidal body has a cross-sectional area which is at least three times as large, in particular at least five times as large, as the cross-sectional area of the toroidal coil carrier.
However Nose teaches the toroidal body (13, 14) has a cross-sectional area which is at least three times as large, in particular at least five times as large, as the cross-sectional area of the toroidal coil carrier (5) as shown in figures 3 and 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a power factor by toroidally winding a primary coil and a shading coil on a core of a stationary armature, thereby making a generated magnetic field close to a sine wave.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using the lamellae extend in the direction of the axis of rotation of the toroidal coil carrier over a length at least twice as long, in particular at least three times as long, as the toroidal coil carrier, as taught by Nose, to improve a power factor by toroidally winding a primary coil and a shading coil on a core of a stationary armature, thereby making a generated magnetic field close to a sine wave.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (DE102016219826) and Asano (JP 2006254619) as applied in claims 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US PG Pub 2014/0117793) and Asano (JP 2006254619).
As to claim 8/5, Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein a maximum radial extension of the toroidal coil carrier is the a same size as a maximum radial extension of the toroidal body of the lamella structure, in each case starting from the axis of rotation, or wherein a minimum radial extension of the toroidal coil carrier is equal to a minimum radial extension of the toroidal body of the lamella structure, in each case starting from the axis of rotation.
However Takahashi teaches a maximum radial extension (see figure 1C) of the toroidal coil carrier (see annotated figure 1C) is a same size as a maximum radial extension (R2) of the toroidal body of the structure (see figure 1C), in each case starting from the axis of rotation, or wherein a minimum radial extension of the toroidal coil carrier is equal to a minimum radial extension of the toroidal body of the lamella structure, in each case starting from the axis of rotation, for the advantageous benefit of preventing vibrations cause noise generation as well as deterioration in strength of the motor.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Asano teaches an lamellae structure (see paragraph [0016]), for the advantageous benefit of improving the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improving the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using a maximum radial extension of the toroidal coil carrier is the a same size as a maximum radial extension of the toroidal body of the lamella structure, in each case starting from the axis of rotation, or wherein a minimum radial extension of the toroidal coil carrier is equal to a minimum radial extension of the toroidal body of the lamella structure, in each case starting from the axis of rotation, as taught by Takahashi and Asano, to prevent vibrations cause noise generation as well as deterioration in strength of the motor and improve the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improve the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (DE102016219826) and Asano (JP 2006254619) as applied in claims 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Akagi (JP2017121111) and Asano (JP 2006254619).
As to claim 9/3, Nakajami in view of Asano the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the winding extends into a region which is radially further away from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost region of the lamella structure, or wherein the winding extends into a region which is radially less distant from the axis of rotation than a radially innermost region of the lamella structure.
However Akagi teaches wherein the winding (11) extends into a region which is radially further away from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost region of the structure (see figure 3), or wherein the winding extends into a region which is radially less distant from the axis of rotation than a radially innermost region of the structure as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of providing a rotary electric machine capable of changing the magnetic flux of a permanent magnet with a low-cost configuration.
Asano teaches lamella structure (see paragraph [0016]), for the advantageous benefit of improving the drive efficiency of a motor and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improving the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nakajami in view of Asano by using the winding extends into a region which is radially further away from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost region of the lamella structure, or wherein the winding extends into a region which is radially less distant from the axis of rotation than a radially innermost region of the lamella structure, as taught by Akagi and Asano, to provide a rotary electric machine capable of changing the magnetic flux of a permanent magnet with a low-cost configuration and a drive output by arranging winding systematically at the inside circumference side of a core, by improve the space factor of the winding at the outside circumferential side up to a level equal to that at the inside circumferential side, and by reducing flux leakage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights