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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolwell (GB2544712, “Bolwell”).
Re claim 1, Bolwell discloses an electric machine comprising:
a) a first magnet ring 11 (figs 2, 6, 7b, 11 & below, pg 4, last para; pg 6, 2nd para & pg 7, 3rd para);
b) a second magnet ring 11 (figs 2, 6, 7b, 11 & below);
c) a single set of shared armature teeth (figs 3, 7-10 & below, pg 5, 4-6th para & pg 6 3rd para to pg 7, 2nd para, teeth of 21, 22 & 23 as seen in figs 8-9 along A-A’) configured between said first magnet ring 11 and said second magnet rings 11 (figs 7b-9 & below), said shared armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC) (pg 9, 5th para); wherein magnetic flux from the first magnet ring 11 and the second magnet ring 11 flow into said armature teeth (figs 13-14, pg 7, 5th -6th para).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
571
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosek et al. (US20160043602, “Hosek”).
Re claim 1, Hosek discloses an electric machine comprising:
a) a first magnet ring 803 (figs 14a-b, [0049]);
b) a second magnet ring 805 (figs 14a-b, [0049]);
c) a single set of shared armature teeth (figs 14a-b & below, [0049]) configured between said first magnet ring 803 and said second magnet rings 805 (figs 14a-b), said shared armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC) 10 ( [0049]); wherein magnetic flux from the first magnet ring 803 and the second magnet ring 805 flow into said armature teeth (figs 14a-b, [0094]).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. (CN204696827, “Xiao”, using machine translation).
Re claim 9, Xiao discloses an electric machine comprising:
an armature ring 121 (fig 1, [0046]);
a coil 122 (fig 1, [0046]);
a magnet ring 110 (figs 1-2, [0046], as seen in fig 2 110 has a ring shape) comprising a repeating arrangement of magnets 112, 113 and flux concentrators (figs 1-2, [0036] & [0038], flux concentrators portions of 11 between magnets 112 & 113) comprising:
a high coercivity magnet 112 (fig 2 & below, [0043]);
a first flux concentrator (fig 2 & below);
a low coercivity magnet 113 (fig 2 & below, [0043]);
a second flux concentrator (fig 2 & below);
wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet 112 (fig 2 & below), followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet 113 (fig 2 & below) and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet 113 (fig 2 & below).
PNG
media_image4.png
347
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calley (US20150340912, “Calley ’912”) in view of Calley et al. (US20110169366, “Calley ’366”).
Re claim 1, Calley ‘912 discloses an electric machine comprising:
a first magnet ring 15 (figs 18-19 & below, [0061-0062]);
a second magnet ring 15 (figs 18-19 & below, [0061-0062]);
a single set of shared armature teeth 26 configured between said first magnet ring 15 and said second magnet ring 15 (figs 18-19 & below, [0061-0062]); wherein magnetic flux from the first magnet ring 15 and the second magnet ring 15 flow into said armature teeth 26 (figs 19 & below, [0062] since teeth between rotors are shared).
PNG
media_image5.png
537
813
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
471
707
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Calley ‘912 discloses claim 1 except for said shared armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC).
Calley ‘912 further discloses the teeth 26 and armature connector ring 18 are formed of tape ([0005] & [0061-0062]).
Calley ‘366 teaches equivalence to forming the magnetic parts of the stator or armature from tape or soft magnetic compound (figs 4a-c, [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known element (tape, as disclosed by Calley ‘912) for another known equivalent element (soft magnetic composite, as disclosed by Calley ‘366; equivalence taught by Calley ‘366) resulting in the predictable result of forming the armature from magnetic material.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 and in further view of Shiga et al. (US20100307201, “Shiga”).
Re claim 2, Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Calley further discloses a coil 16 (figs 18-19, [0043]); wherein the first magnet ring 15 and second magnet ring 15 each comprise a repeating arrangement of magnets 90 and flux concentrators 91 (figs 18-19 & above for claim 1, [0061-0062]).
Calley ‘912 discloses claim 2 but is silent with respect to the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising: a high coercivity magnet; a first flux concentrator; a low coercivity magnet; and a second flux concentrator; wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet.
Shiga discloses a repeating arrangement of magnets comprising: a high coercivity magnet 14; and a low coercivity magnet 15 (fig 3, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the magnets of Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 with a repeating arrangement of magnets comprising a high coercivity magnet; and a low coercivity magnet, as disclosed by Shiga, in order to make the motor run more efficient between high speed/low torque operation and low speed/high torque operations, as taught by Shiga ([0031-0034] & [0043]).
It is pointed out that Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising: a high coercivity magnet; a first flux concentrator; a low coercivity magnet; and a second flux concentrator; wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet; since:
Calley ‘912 discloses the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrator; and Shiga discloses every other rotor magnet is a high coercivity magnet 14 with the low coercivity magnet 15 between them (fig 3). In order to achieve this configuration one in the art would alternate the magnets in the rotor of Calley to alternate between high coercivity magnets and low coercivity magnets, resulting in the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising: a high coercivity magnet; a first flux concentrator; a low coercivity magnet; and a second flux concentrator; wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet.
Re claim 3, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 2 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is changed by a pulse of current in the coil (Shiga, fig 6, [0033-0034]).
Re claim 4, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is changed by at least 20% by the pulse of current (Shiga, fig 6, [0033-0034]).
Re claim 5, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is adjusted to substantially zero by the pulse of current (Shiga, fig 6, [0033-0034]).
Re claim 6, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is reversed by the pulse of current (Shiga, fig 6, [0032-0034]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga in further view of Yuuki et al. (US20100201294, “Yuuki”).
Re claim 7, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a controller that interfaces with torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reduce the field strength of the low coercivity magnet (Shiga, fig 5, [0033-0034], controller controls machine to demagnetize 15 for high speed/low torque operation during dehydration step).
Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 7 except for an RPM sensor.
Yuuki discloses employing an RPM sensor 18 to control magnetization/demagnetization of magnet 53 (figs 2 & 5, [0059] & [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Calley ‘912 in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga to employ an RPM sensor, as taught by Yuuki, in order to employ the electric machine in applications that involve variable speeds, such as a vehicle, as taught by Yuuki ([0004] & [0368]).
Re claim 8, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a controller that interfaces with torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reverse the field strength of the low coercivity magnet (Shiga, fig 5, [0031-0032], controller controls machine to demagnetize 15 for low speed/high torque operation during dehydration step).
Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga disclose claim 8 except for an RPM sensor.
Yuuki discloses employing an RPM sensor 18 to control magnetization/demagnetization of magnet 53 (figs 2 & 5, [0059] & [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga to employ an RPM sensor, as taught by Yuuki, in order to employ the electric machine in applications that involve variable speeds, such as a vehicle, as taught by Yuuki ([0004] & [0368]).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga.
Re claim 9, Calley ‘912 discloses an electric machine comprising:
an armature ring 18 (figs 18-19, [0061]);
a coil 16 (figs 18-19, [0043]);
a magnet ring 15 (figs 18-19 & above, [0061-0062]) comprising a repeating arrangement of magnets 90 and flux concentrators 91 (figs 18-19 & above for claim 1, [0061-0062]).
Calley ‘912 discloses claim 9 but is silent with respect the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising: a high coercivity magnet; a first flux concentrator; a low coercivity magnet; and a second flux concentrator; wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet.
Shiga discloses a repeating arrangement of magnets comprising: a high coercivity magnet 14; and a low coercivity magnet 15 (fig 3, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the magnets of Calley ‘912 with a repeating arrangement of magnets comprising a high coercivity magnet; and a low coercivity magnet, as disclosed by Shiga, in order to make the motor run more efficient between high speed/low torque operation and low speed/high torque operations, as taught by Shiga ([0031-0034] & [0043]).
It is pointed out that Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga disclose the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising: a high coercivity magnet; a first flux concentrator; a low coercivity magnet; and a second flux concentrator; wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet; since:
Calley ‘912 discloses the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrator; and Shiga discloses every other rotor magnet is a high coercivity magnet 14 with the low coercivity magnet 15 between them (fig 3). In order to achieve this configuration one in the art would alternate the magnets in the rotor of Calley ‘912 to alternate between high coercivity magnets and low coercivity magnets, resulting in the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising: a high coercivity magnet; a first flux concentrator; a low coercivity magnet; and a second flux concentrator; wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet.
Re claim 10, Calley in view of Shiga disclose claim 9 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is changed by a pulse of current in the coil (Shiga, fig 6, [0033-0034]).
Re claim 11, Calley in view of Shiga disclose claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is changed by at least 20% by the pulse of current (Shiga, fig 6, [0033-0034]).
Re claim 12, Calley in view of Shiga disclose claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is adjusted to substantially zero by the pulse of current (Shiga, fig 6, [0033-0034]).
Re claim 13, Calley in view of Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a field strength of the low coercivity magnets 15 is reversed by the pulse of current (Shiga, fig 6, [0032-0034]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calley ‘912 and Shiga in further view of Yuuki.
Re claim 14, Calley in view of Shiga disclose claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses a controller that interfaces with torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reduce the field strength of the low coercivity magnet (Shiga, fig 5, [0033-0034], controller controls machine to demagnetize 15 for high speed/low torque operation during dehydration step).
Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga disclose claim 14 except for an RPM sensor.
Yuuki discloses employing an RPM sensor 18 to control magnetization/demagnetization of magnet 53 (figs 2 & 5, [0059] & [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga to employ an RPM sensor, as taught by Yuuki, in order to employ the electric machine in applications that involve variable speeds, such as a vehicle, as taught by Yuuki ([0004] & [0368]).
Re claim 8, Calley in view of Calley ’366 and Shiga disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a controller that interfaces with torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reverse the field strength of the low coercivity magnet (Shiga, fig 5, [0031-0032], controller controls machine to demagnetize 15 for low speed/high torque operation during dehydration step).
Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga disclose claim 15 except for an RPM sensor.
Yuuki discloses employing an RPM sensor 18 to control magnetization/demagnetization of magnet 53 (figs 2 & 5, [0059] & [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Calley ‘912 in view of Shiga to employ an RPM sensor, as taught by Yuuki, in order to employ the electric machine in applications that involve variable speeds, such as a vehicle, as taught by Yuuki ([0004] & [0368]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18-23 of U.S. Patent No. US12119708. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of 18899518
Claim 1 of US12119708
An electric machine comprising:
a) a first magnet ring;
b) a second magnet ring; and
c) a single set of shared armature teeth configured between said first magnet ring and said second magnet rings, said shared armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC);
wherein magnetic flux from the first magnet ring and the second magnet ring flow into said armature teeth.
A multi phase transverse flux electric machine comprising:
a) a first magnet ring comprising a plurality of magnets and a plurality of concentrators;
b) a second magnet ring comprising a plurality of magnets and a plurality of concentrators;
c) a single set of shared armature teeth extending from a second armature connector ring and configured between said first magnet ring and said second magnet rings, said shared armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC);
wherein magnetic flux from the first magnet ring and the second magnet ring flow into said armature teeth of the second armature connector ring; and
d) a first armature connector ring axially displaced on a first side of the first magnet ring, and having armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC);
wherein said second armature connector ring is configured between the first and second magnet rings;
wherein the armature teeth of each of the first and second armature connector rings extend from the respective armature connector ring;
wherein the armature teeth of each of the first and second armature connector rings extend radially from the respective armature connector ring to a tooth tip;
e) a coil between the first armature connector ring and the second armature connector ring;
wherein the armature teeth of the second connector ring have opposing axial airgap surfaces forming an airgap with the first magnet ring and the second magnet ring;
wherein the armature teeth of each of the first and second armature connector rings are continuously tapered along the axial air gap surfaces from the armature connector ring to the tooth tip;
wherein the magnetic flux flows from the first magnet ring into the armature teeth of the second armature connector, then radially to the second armature connector ring, then axially around said central coil, then back to said first magnet ring to produce transverse flux.
Claim 2 of 18899518
Claim 18 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a coil;(see last three lines of claim 18 below)
wherein the first magnet ring and second magnet ring each comprise a repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising:
a high coercivity magnet;
a first flux concentrator;
a low coercivity magnet; and
a second flux concentrator;
wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet.
a coil;
Claim 18:
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 1,
wherein the first magnet ring and second magnet ring each comprise a repeating arrangement of the plurality of magnets and the plurality of concentrators comprising:
(note: concentrators are flux concentrators since they connect magnets and claim 1 recites magnetic flux is transferred from the first and second magnet rings to the armature)
a high coercivity magnet;
a first concentrator;
a low coercivity magnet; and
a second concentrator;
wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and concentrators has said first
concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and the second concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet; and
wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by a pulse of current in the coil.
Claim 3 of 18899518
Claim 18/1 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 2, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by a pulse of current in the coil.
Claim 18:
wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by a pulse of current in the coil.
Claim 4 of 18899518
Claim 19 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 3, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by at least 20% by the pulse of current.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 18, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by at least 20% by the pulse of current.
Claim 5 of 18899518
Claim 20 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 3, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is adjusted to substantially zero by the pulse of current.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 18, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is adjusted to substantially zero by the pulse of current.
Claim 6 of 18899518
Claim 21 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 3, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is reversed by the pulse of current.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 18, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is reversed by the pulse of current.
Claim 7 of 18899518
Claim 22 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 3, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reduce the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 18, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reduce the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
Claim 8 of 18899518
Claim 23 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 3, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reverse the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 18, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reverse the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
Claims 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24 and 29-34 of U.S. Patent No. US12119708. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 9 of 18899518
Claim 29/24 of US12119708
An electric machine comprising:
an armature ring;
a coil;
a magnet ring comprising a repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising:
a high coercivity magnet;
a first flux concentrator;
a low coercivity magnet;
a second flux concentrator;
wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet.
A multi phase transverse flux electric machine comprising:
a) a first magnet ring comprising a plurality of magnets and a plurality of concentrators;
b) a second magnet ring comprising a plurality of magnets and a plurality of concentrators;
c) a single set of shared armature teeth extending from a second armature connector ring and configured between said first magnet ring and said second magnet rings, said shared armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC);
wherein magnetic flux from the first magnet ring and the second magnet ring flow into said armature teeth of the second armature connector ring; and
d) a first armature connector ring axially displaced on a first side of the first magnet ring, and having armature teeth formed of shaped soft metal composite (SMC);
wherein said second armature connector ring is configured between the first and second magnet rings;
wherein the armature teeth of each of the first and second armature connector rings extend from the respective armature connector ring;
e) a central coil configured around the second connector ring;
wherein the armature teeth of each of the first and second armature connector rings extend radially from the respective armature connector ring to a tooth tip;
wherein the magnetic flux flows from the first magnet ring into the armature teeth of the second armature connector, then radially to the second armature connector ring, then axially around said central coil, then back to said first magnet ring to produce transverse flux;
wherein each of the armature teeth of the second armature connector ring has a first radial gap extension forming a radial airgap with the first magnet ring and a second radial airgap extension forming a radial airgap with the second magnet ring.
Claim 29:
A multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 24, wherein the first magnet ring and second magnet ring each comprise a repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising:
a high coercivity magnet;
a first flux concentrator;
a low coercivity magnet;
a second flux concentrator;
wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet; and
wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by a pulse of current in the coil.
Claim 10 of 18899518
Claim 29 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 9,
wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by a pulse of current in the coil.
A multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 24, wherein the first magnet ring and second magnet ring each comprise a repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators comprising:
a high coercivity magnet;
a first flux concentrator;
a low coercivity magnet;
a second flux concentrator;
wherein the repeating arrangement of magnets and flux concentrators has said first flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the high coercivity magnet, followed circumferentially by the low coercivity magnet and a second flux concentrator circumferentially arranged following the low coercivity magnet; and
wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by a pulse of current in the coil.
Claim 11 of 18899518
Claim 30 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 10, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by at least 20% by the pulse of current.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 29, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is changed by at least 20% by the pulse of current.
Claim 12 of 18899518
Claim 31 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 10, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is adjusted to substantially zero by the pulse of current.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 29, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is adjusted to substantially zero by the pulse of current.
Claim 13 of 18899518
Claim 32 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 10, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is reversed by the pulse of current.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 29, wherein a field strength of the low coercivity magnets is reversed by the pulse of current.
Claim 14 of 18899518
Claim 33 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 10, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reduce the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 29, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reduce the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
Claim 15 of 18899518
Claim 34 of US12119708
The electric machine of claim 10, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reverse the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
The multi phase transverse flux electric machine of claim 29, further comprising a controller that interfaces with an RPM sensor and torque requirement input and wherein when both the RPM level is above a threshold level and the torque requirement input is below a threshold level the controller initiates a pulse of to reverse the field strength of the low coercivity magnet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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 on (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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights