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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recited: “the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils”, such limitation is new matter which was not disclosed in the original disclosure as filed.
It is noted that Per Applicant’s Remark page 7/10, Lee fails to disclose the main driving source of the rotor in the present invention consisting solely of coils.
However, ¶ 61, 62 of the instant application disclosed that auxiliary magnet interacts with the stator coil 120. Therefore, which amended limitation in light of Remark clearly contradicted with ¶61 and 62 of the instant application.
Claim 3 recited: “an amount of magnetic flux generated by the auxiliary magnet is less than an amount of magnetic flux generated by the rotor coils”, which limitation also contradict claim 1 as claim 1 required the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 7876014 B2) in view of Takahashi (US 2018/0034332 A1).
RE claim 1, Lee teaches a motor (Figs.1, 8, 9 and ¶ 3), comprising: a stator (S) including a plurality of stator coils (col.5: 20-25); a rotor 20 mounted inside the stator (S) to be rotatable about a rotation shaft 10 and including a plurality of rotor coils 60 interacting with the stator coils (col.11: 10-19); and an auxiliary magnet 50 mounted between the rotation shaft 10 and the rotor coils 60 in a radial direction of the rotation shaft 10, wherein the rotor coils 60 and the auxiliary magnet 50 are comprised not being overlapped in a circumferential direction (Fig.9), the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils.
With regard to the limitation “the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils”, such limitation can be interpreted as method of operating the electrical machine. Specifically, according to ¶ 61, 62, when the power is supplied to the rotor coils, the auxiliary magnet does not affect the driving of the motor. Because Lee disclosed the same structure as claimed, the rotor with the same structure can carry out the same process as claimed during normal operation.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Lee does not teach the stator coils repeated mounted in a circumferential direction of the stator.
Takahashi teaches stator coils 12 repeatedly mounted in a circumferential direction of the stator 101 (Fig.5), doing so allows the stator coil to be easily wound around each of the teeth of the split cores (¶ 7). Accordingly, it is possible to increase the number of turns of the stator coil wound around the teeth, thus increasing the space factor of the stator coil in a slot. Therefore, it is possible to improve the motor efficiency (¶ 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by having the stator coils repeated mounted in a circumferential direction of the stator, as taught by Takahashi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is a permanent magnet 50 (col.10: 25-30).
RE claim 5/1, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the rotor includes: a back yoke 15 (Figs.4, 9) into which the rotation shaft 10 is inserted (Figs.8, 9); a plurality of teeth (T) (where coils 50 wounded, see annotated Fig. 9 below) extending from the back yoke in the radial direction; and a corresponding rotor coil 60 wound around the teeth (Fig.9).
[AltContent: textbox (anti-scattering protrusion (AP))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Back yoke (BY))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shoe (S))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Teeth (T))]
PNG
media_image1.png
432
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 6/5, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the rotor further includes a shoe (S) extending from an end portion of the teeth (T) in the circumferential direction (Fig.9).
RE claim 7/5, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is mounted in a second slot formed in the back yoke (BY) (Fig.9).
RE claim 9/7, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is disposed to be staggered with the teeth (T) in the circumferential direction (Fig.9).
RE claim 10/7, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is in plural and the plurality of auxiliary magnets 50 is repeatedly mounted at intervals in the circumferential direction (Fig.9).
RE claim 11/7, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is in plural and the plurality of auxiliary magnets 50 is continuously mounted in the circumferential direction (Fig.9).
RE claim 13/5, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is mounted in a space between the back yoke (BY) and a corresponding rotor coil 60 (Fig.9).
RE claim 14/13, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches an anti-scattering protrusion (AP) (see annotated Fig.9 above) is formed to protrude from the teeth (T) toward an end portion of the auxiliary magnet 50 (Fig.9).
RE claim 15/14, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the anti-scattering protrusion includes a bridge (AP), which is interconnected to continuously surround the end portion of the auxiliary magnet 50 in the circumferential direction (Fig.9).
RE claim 16, Lee teaches a motor (Figs.1, 8, 9 and ¶ 3), comprising: a stator 32 including a plurality of stator coils (col.5: 20-25) direction of the stator; a rotor 20 mounted inside the stator (S) to be rotatable about a rotation shaft 10 and including a plurality of rotor coils 60 interacting with the stator coils (col.11: 10-19); and an auxiliary magnet 50 mounted between the rotation shaft 10 and the rotor coils 60 in a radial direction of the rotation shaft 10, wherein the rotor coils 60 include an inset type inserted into the rotor 20, and wherein the auxiliary magnet 50 is inserted between the rotation shaft 10 and the rotor coils 60 in the inset type (Fig.9), wherein the rotor coils 60 and the auxiliary magnet 50 are comprised not being overlapped in a circumferential direction (Fig.9), the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils.
With regard to the limitation “the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils”, such limitation can be interpreted as method of operating the electrical machine. Specifically, according to ¶ 61, 62, when the power is supplied to the rotor coils, the auxiliary magnet does not affect the driving of the motor. Because Lee disclosed the same structure as claimed, the rotor with the same structure can carry out the same process as claimed during normal operation.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Lee does not teach the stator coils repeated mounted in a circumferential direction of the stator.
Takahashi teaches stator coils 12 repeatedly mounted in a circumferential direction of the stator 101 (Fig.5), doing so allows the stator coil to be easily wound around each of the teeth of the split cores (¶ 7). Accordingly, it is possible to increase the number of turns of the stator coil wound around the teeth, thus increasing the space factor of the stator coil in a slot. Therefore, it is possible to improve the motor efficiency (¶ 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by having the stator coils repeated mounted in a circumferential direction of the stator, as taught by Takahashi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 17/16, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is in plural 50 and the plurality of auxiliary magnets 50 is repeatedly mounted continuously in the circumferential direction (Fig.9).
RE claim 18/17, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is in plural and the plurality of auxiliary magnets 50 is mounted with N-poles and S-poles repeatedly in the circumferential direction (col.7: 50-60).
RE claim 19/16, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee further teaches the auxiliary magnet 50 is in plural, and the plurality of auxiliary magnets 50 is spaced apart in the circumferential direction and is repeatedly mounted with N and S-poles (col.7: 50-60).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuwahara (US 6756870 B2).
RE claim 3/2, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee does not teach an amount of magnetic flux generated by the auxiliary magnet is less than an amount of magnetic flux generated by the rotor coils.
Kuwahara teaches an amount of magnetic flux generated by the auxiliary magnet 30 is less than an amount of magnetic flux generated by the rotor coils 20 (col.6: 40-50, col.16: 20-50), making it possible to obtain a compact structure at decreased weight/cost (col.16: 45-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Takahashi by having an amount of magnetic flux generated by the auxiliary magnet is less than an amount of magnetic flux generated by the rotor coils, as taught by Kuwahara, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akemakou (US 2006/0119206 A1).
RE claim 4/1, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee does not teach the rotor coils are formed by winding a superconducting wire, copper, or aluminum.
Akemakou teaches the rotor coils are formed by winding a superconducting wire, copper (¶ 93), or aluminum. The copper material is well-known for having good conductivity while being widely available with lower cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Takahashi by having the rotor coils are formed by winding a superconducting wire, copper, or aluminum, as taught by Akemakou, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takahashi as applied to claims 7, 5 (respectively) above, and further in view of Mathoy (US 2010/0308686 A1).
RE claim 8/7, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee does not teach the auxiliary magnet is disposed to be parallel to the teeth in the radial direction.
Mathoy teaches the auxiliary magnet 13 is disposed to be parallel to the teeth 5 in the radial direction (Fig.2, ¶ 61) for eliminating the magnetic conductivity of the lamellar bridges (¶ 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Takahashi by having the auxiliary magnet is disposed to be parallel to the teeth in the radial direction, as taught by Mathoy, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 12/5, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee does not teach the auxiliary magnet is mounted in a first slot formed in the teeth.
Mathoy teaches the auxiliary magnet 13 is mounted in a first slot formed in the teeth 5 (Fig.2, ¶ 61) for eliminating the magnetic conductivity of the lamellar bridges (¶ 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Takahashi by having the auxiliary magnet is mounted in a first slot formed in the teeth, as taught by Mathoy, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trawick (US 2024/0007025 A1).
RE claim 20/1, Lee in view of Takahashi has been discussed above. Lee does not teach a mobility device, comprising: a body; at least one driving means mounted in the body; a battery mounted in the body; and the motor of claim 1, which is connected to the battery and supplies driving force to the at least one driving means.
Lee provided a motor/generator with capability of increasing magnetic flux to enhance generation efficiency (col.2 45-55).
Trawick teaches a mobility device 10, comprising: a body 12 (Fig.1); at least one driving means 26 mounted in the body; a battery 36 mounted in the body 12; and the motor 32, which is connected to the battery 36 and supplies driving force to the at least one driving means 26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the motor/generator disclosed by Lee in any applicable application such as mobility device as shown in Fig.1, as evidenced by Trawick.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the Remark, Applicant argued that Lee does not teach amended limitation wherein the rotor coils and the auxiliary magnet is comprised not being overlapped in a circumferential direction, and wherein the rotor coils are the only main actuator interacting with the stator coils. Specifically, Applicant argued that the rotor magnets 31a, 31b, 32a, 32b as main driving source and rotor coil 60 as auxiliary driving source and fails to disclose that the main driving source of the rotor in present invention consisting solely of coils.
In response:
Applicant’s argument was not found persuasive:
First, Lee clearly disclosed that magnets 50 and coil 60 are not being overlapped in a circumferential direction as shown in Figure 9. Therefore, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Second, with regard to the “only main actuator” amendment, The limitation recites a manner of operating the motor, not a structural difference. An apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what it does.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, Seye 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
