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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200052541 A1 to Wollenberg in view of WO 2022180922 A1 to Kori et al.
Regarding claim 1, Wollenberg discloses a machine comprising:
a stator having two sets of stator coils (Fig. 1: 111 and 121) configured to connect to different power converters (412 and 422); and
a rotor (210) inserted into the stator, the rotor having a rotor shaft (300) and two rotor coils (211 and 221; [0039]),
wherein the two sets of stator coils are arranged in the stator in such a way that: when a first set of stator coils fails, the second set of stator coils cooperates with at least the second rotor coil supplied with the associated supply current in order to generate electrical energy at the terminals of the second set of stator coils or to generate a mechanical torque on the rotor shaft [0046], and the power converter connected to the first set of stator coils does not deliver any electrical power [0048].
However, it fails to disclose a wound rotor and two rotor coils each intended to be supplied with a different supply current.
Kori et al. teaches a wound rotor and two rotor coils (Fig. 1: 39a and 40a) each intended to be supplied with a different supply current (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the wound rotor as disclosed by Kori et al. to the rotor disclosed by Wollenberg.
One would have been motivated to do so to control supply power to the machine.
Regarding claim 2, Wollenberg discloses the two rotor coils (211 and 221) are arranged in series on the rotor shaft (300), and wherein the first set of stator coils and the second set of stator coils are arranged in the stator in such a way that: the first rotor coil and the first set of stator coils form a first electromagnetic converter (T), and the second rotor coil and the second set of stator coils form a second electromagnetic converter (T2).
Regarding claim 3, Wollenberg discloses the rotor comprises two identical magnetic rotor half-masses (210 and 220) extending in a longitudinal direction of the rotor, and the stator comprises two identical magnetic stator half-masses (box of 111 and 121) extending in a longitudinal direction of the stator, and wherein each rotor coil are inserted into a different magnetic rotor half-mass and each set of stator coils are inserted into a different magnetic stator half-mass.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wollenberg and Kori et al. discloses the rotor comprises two sets of supply rings (Fig. 4: 31), each set being connected to a different rotor coil (35a and 35b), wherein the stator comprises two sets of brushes (33) each supplying power to a different set of rings (31), and wherein each set of brushes are intended to be connected to one of the second power converters (Fig. 16: 201b).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wollenberg and Kori et al. discloses propulsion device for aircraft comprising; an electric machine according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and a propulsion propeller (Wollenberg, Fig. 1: 1) connected to the rotor shaft (300).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wollenberg and Kori et al. discloses a hybrid turboshaft engine for aircraft comprising: an electric machine according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and a turboshaft engine comprising a gas free-turbine ((Wollenberg, Fig. 1: 1)), the free-turbine being additionally connected to the rotor shaft (300) of the electric machine.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wollenberg and Kori et al. discloses an aircraft comprising a propulsion device (Wollenberg, Fig. 1: 1) according to claim 5 (see claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, Wollenberg discloses a method comprising:
deactivating the failed first set of stator coils by operating the power converter connected to the first set in such a way that the converter does not deliver any electrical power to the set of coils [0048];
supplying the second set of stator coils with electricity from the associated power converter [0046]; and
supplying the second rotor coil with at least one associated supply current to generate a mechanical torque on the rotor shaft or to generate electrical energy at the terminals of the second set of stator coils [0046].
However, it fails to disclose a wound rotor and two rotor coils each intended to be supplied with a different supply current.
Kori et al. teaches a wound rotor and two rotor coils (Fig. 1: 39a and 40a) each intended to be supplied with a different supply current (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the wound rotor as disclosed by Kori et al. to the rotor disclosed by Wollenberg.
One would have been motivated to do so to control supply power to the machine.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wollenberg and Kori et al. discloses an aircraft comprising a hybrid turboshaft engine (Wollenberg, [0003]) according to claim 6 (see claim 6 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIET P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9457. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F from 12pm-8pm.
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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/VIET P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights