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 30 October 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-28, 29 (2 instances), and 30-31 are now pending in the application.
Election/Restriction
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7-10, 17-20, 23, and 29 (2nd instance) is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 September 2026.
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 30 October 2024 and 05 June 2026 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the N stator cores comprise split-teeth flux modulators”. The term “split-teeth flux modulators” is not a term generally known in the art, and is not described in the specification in any detail. Thus, it is unclear whether the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear to what feature this limitation is intended to refer, thereby also rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the stator/rotor structures being “arranged to maximize axial flux and/or radial flux”. Since no means of maximizing magnetic flux is described in the application, it is unclear whether the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear to what feature this limitation is intended to refer, thereby also rendering the claim indefinite.
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) 1, 3, 6, 11-16, 21-22, 24-28, 29 (1st instance), and 30-31 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 1 recites the rotor/stator structures being “arranged to improve torque generation”. It is unclear to what feature of the present invention this limitation refers, as the entire disclosure relates to improving torque density and torque generation. Thus, this limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the N stator cores comprise split-teeth flux modulators”. The term “split-teeth flux modulators” is not a term generally known in the art, and is not described in the specification in any detail. Thus, it is unclear whether the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear to what feature this limitation is intended to refer, thereby also rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the stator/rotor structures being “arranged to maximize axial flux and/or radial flux”. Since no means of maximizing magnetic flux is described in the application, it is unclear whether the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear to what feature this limitation is intended to refer, thereby also rendering the claim indefinite.
The remaining claims are rejected solely due to their dependence on claim 1.
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, 3, 6, 11, 13-16, 21-22, 24, 27, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tateishi et al. (US 2018/0152064 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Tateishi”.
Regarding claim 1, Tateishi discloses a magnetically geared apparatus configured either as an electric motor [M] or as a generator, and comprising a stator structure [3] and a rotor structure [2] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0038) arranged to improve torque generation (this limitation, being undefined in the application, is interpreted as not requiring any additional structure) wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
589
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said stator structure [3] contains N≥1 stator cores [40,50] and a shared toroidal electrical winding [60] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0053-0060); and
said rotor structure [2] contains an equal number of corresponding rotor cores [10,20] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 3, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 2, wherein the N stator cores [40,50] are arranged back-to-back (fig. 2-3; the cores are adjacent to one another in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 6, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 3, as stated above, wherein the N stator cores [40,50] are integrated into a single core (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0053-0060).
Regarding claim 11, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the N stator cores [40,50] and/or the N rotor cores [10,20] are configured to reduce eddy currents (¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 13, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the N rotor cores [10,20] and/or the N stator cores [40,50] are formed of ferromagnetic particles that are electrically insulated from each other thereby limiting eddy currents within the rotor [10,20] and/or stator cores [40,50] (¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 14, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared machine of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the N stator cores [40,50] comprises stator core teeth [43,53] arranged in a substantially open-slot configuration for flux modulation (fig. 2; ¶ 0055-0056, 0058-0059; spaces between the teeth are open/unoccupied).
Regarding claim 15, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the N stator cores [40,50] comprise split-teeth flux modulators [43,53] (fig. 2; ¶ 0055-0056, 0058-0059; this limitation is interpreted as requiring teeth [43,53] on both halves of each stator core).
Regarding claim 16, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above, wherein said N stator cores [40,50] are substantially fused within said stator structure [3] (fig. 2; ¶ 0060) and/or said N rotor cores [10,20] are substantially fused within said rotor structure [2] (fig. 2; ¶ 0047) such that the toroidal winding [60] is substantially encompassed by the substantially fused stator [40,50] and/or substantially fused rotor [10,20] (fig. 2; ¶ 0062).
Regarding claim 21, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1 as stated above, wherein said stator structure [3] and said rotor structure [2] are arranged to maximize axial flux and/or radial flux (this limitation, being undefined in the application, is interpreted as not requiring any additional structure).
Regarding claim 22, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above, wherein N=2, and wherein the N stator cores [40,50] and the N rotor cores [10,20] are arranged to form a dual-airgap radial flux machine (fig. 1-2; each rotor/stator pair forms its own cylindrical airgap, aligned with one another).
Regarding claim 24, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, wherein N=2, and wherein the N stator cores [40,50] and the N rotor cores [10,20] are arranged to form a dual-airgap axial flux machine (fig. 1-2; each rotor/stator pair forms its own cylindrical airgap, aligned with one another).
Regarding claim 27, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the N stator cores [40,50] and the N rotor cores [10,20] are arranged to form a multi-airgap machine wherein the airgaps are contiguous (fig. 1-2; each rotor/stator pair forms its own cylindrical airgap, aligned with one another).
Regarding claim 29, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 17, as stated above, wherein the multiple airgaps merge into a single combined airgap (fig. 1-2; each rotor/stator pair forms its own cylindrical airgap, aligned with one another).
Regarding claim 30, Tateishi discloses a magnetically geared dual-airgap apparatus configured either as an electric motor [M] or as a generator, and comprising a stator structure [3] and a rotor structure [2] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0038) arranged to improve torque generation (this limitation, being undefined in the application, is interpreted as not requiring any additional structure) wherein:
said stator structure [3] contains 2 stator cores [40,50] and a shared toroidal electrical winding [60] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0053-0060); and
said rotor structure [2] contains 2 corresponding rotor cores [10,20] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0040-0047), wherein the stator cores [40,50] and the rotor cores [10,20] are arranged to form a dual-airgap radial flux machine (fig. 1-2; each rotor/stator pair forms its own cylindrical airgap, aligned with one another) or a dual-airgap axial flux machine.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 25-26, 28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123609 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Wang”.
Regarding claim 12, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Tateishi does not disclose that electrically insulated ferromagnetic laminations are arranged with a lamination direction orthogonal to an airgap surface and orthogonal to the direction of motion of the rotor relative to the stator thereby limiting eddy currents within the stator and rotor cores.
Wang discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a rotor [300,400] and a stator [200] (fig. 1; ¶ 0060-0061), wherein electrically insulated ferromagnetic laminations are arranged with a lamination direction orthogonal to an airgap surface and orthogonal to the direction of motion of the rotor [300,400] relative to the stator [200] (fig. 2A; ¶ 0064) thereby limiting eddy currents within the stator [201] and rotor cores [302,402] (fig. 1A, 2A, 5; ¶ 0066-0067).
PNG
media_image2.png
716
1427
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 form the rotor and stator of Tateishi from laminations arranged orthogonal to the airgap surface(s) as taught by Wang, in order to reduce manufacturing costs, increase torque output, and lower the hysteresis losses of the motor (¶ 0023 of Wang).
Regarding claim 25, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Tateishi does not disclose that N=3, and wherein the N stator cores and the N rotor cores are arranged to form a three-airgap flux machine comprising either two axial airgaps and one radial airgap or one axial airgap and two radial airgaps.
Wang discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a rotor [300,400] with rotor cores [302,402] and a stator [200] with N≥1 stator cores [202A, 202B,203] (fig. 1; ¶ 0060-0061), wherein N=3, and wherein the N stator cores [202A, 202B,203] and the N rotor cores [302,402] are arranged to form a three-airgap flux machine comprising either two axial airgaps and one radial airgap or one axial airgap and two radial airgaps (fig. 1A, 5; ¶ 0060-0064).
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 apparatus of Tateishi having multiple rotor and stator cores arranged across multiple axial and radial airgaps as taught by Wang, in order to improve torque generation and reduce losses (¶ 0009 of Wang).
Regarding claim 26, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Tateishi does not disclose that N=4, and wherein the N stator cores and the N rotor cores are arranged to form a five-airgap flux machine comprising either two axial airgaps and three radial airgaps or three axial airgap and two radial airgaps.
Wang discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a rotor [300,400] with rotor cores [302,402] and a stator [200] with N≥1 stator cores [202A, 202B,203] (fig. 1; ¶ 0060-0061), wherein N=3, and wherein the N stator cores [202A, 202B,203] and the N rotor cores [302,402] are arranged to form a three-airgap flux machine comprising either two axial airgaps and one radial airgap or one axial airgap and two radial airgaps (fig. 1A, 5; ¶ 0060-0064).
While Wang does not teach the exact number of cores and airgaps claimed, Wang does disclose that providing additional rotor/stator airgaps is a known method of increasing torque (¶ 0007). Thus, 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 apparatus of Tateishi having multiple rotor and stator cores arranged across multiple axial and radial airgaps as taught by Wang, in order to improve torque generation and reduce losses (¶ 0009 of Wang). Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 PSQ 8.
Regarding claim 28, Tateishi discloses the magnetically geared apparatus of claim 27, as stated above. Tateishi does not disclose that the multi-airgap flux machine is configured as a linear machine.
Wang discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a rotor [300,400] with rotor cores [302,402] and a stator [200] with N≥1 stator cores [202A, 202B,203] (fig. 1; ¶ 0060-0061), wherein the multi-airgap flux machine is configured as a linear machine (¶ 0040, 0105).
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 apparatus of Tateishi configured as a linear machine as taught by Wang, in order to allow rotary and linear motion between parts as well as minimize stress concentrations under a high load (¶ 0105 of Wang).
Regarding claim 31, Tateishi discloses a magnetically geared three-airgap apparatus configured either as an electric motor [M] or as a generator, and comprising a stator structure [3] and a rotor structure [2] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0038) arranged to improve torque generation (this limitation, being undefined in the application, is interpreted as not requiring any additional structure) wherein:
said stator structure [3] contains 2 stator cores [40,50] and a shared toroidal electrical winding [60] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0053-0060); and
said rotor structure [2] contains 2 corresponding rotor cores [10,20] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0040-0047), wherein the stator cores [40,50] and the rotor cores [10,20] are arranged to form a dual-airgap radial flux machine (fig. 1-2; each rotor/stator pair forms its own cylindrical airgap, aligned with one another) or a dual-airgap axial flux machine.
Tateishi does not disclose 3 stator/rotor cores arranged to form a three-airgap flux machine comprising either two axial airgaps and one radial airgap or one axial airgap and two radial airgaps.
Wang discloses a magnetically geared apparatus comprising a rotor [300,400] with rotor cores [302,402] and a stator [200] with N≥1 stator cores [202A, 202B,203] (fig. 1; ¶ 0060-0061), wherein N=3, and wherein the N stator cores [202A, 202B,203] and the N rotor cores [302,402] are arranged to form a three-airgap flux machine comprising either two axial airgaps and one radial airgap or one axial airgap and two radial airgaps (fig. 1A, 5; ¶ 0060-0064).
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 apparatus of Tateishi having multiple rotor and stator cores arranged across multiple axial and radial airgaps as taught by Wang, in order to improve torque generation and reduce losses (¶ 0009 of Wang).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Kanada et al. (US 2021/0328490 A1) discloses a multiple-airgap axial gap motor comprising a plurality of toroidal coils.
Ueda et al. (US 2018/0198332 A1) discloses a three-airgap radial gap motor comprising three rotor/stator cores, each stator having a toroidal coil.
Hunstable (US 2016/0380496 A1) discloses a multiple-airgap motor comprising both axial and radial airgaps, stator cores formed of circumferentially stacked laminations, and a toroidal coil passing through the stator cores.
Radovsky (US 2016/0218606 A1) discloses a multiple-airgap axial gap motor comprising stator cores with a toroidal coil passing through centers thereof and rotor cores comprising permanent magnets arranged in a Halbach array.
Rao (US 2007/0228860 A1) discloses a multiple-airgap motor comprising both radial and axial airgaps, and a toroidal stator coil.
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