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 26 January 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1 and 3-4 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 26 January 2026, have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 4-5 of the Remarks) alleges that the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 should be withdrawn because the previously-indicated new matter and indefinite limitations have been removed from the claims. Since the objectionable subject matter is no longer present, this argument is persuasive and said grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. The argument further alleges that proof of sufficient disclosure is provided by the fact that the Japanese and Israel patent offices found that the claims were properly supported. However, since foreign patent offices examine patents based on the laws of their respective nations, without consideration of United States patent law, the conclusions of foreign offices are completely irrelevant to any determinations made in this application.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 5-6 of the Remarks) alleges, in regard to the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that Dolude does not disclose the frame, gimbal, and rotor spin axes being “mutually perpendicular” as recited in claim 1 as amended. However, no explanation or evidence is provided in support of this allegation. The argument instead discusses the claimed requirement of “three electrical states”, having no apparent bearing on the orientation of the axes. Since, as shown in figures 2-4, Dolude clearly discloses the frame spin axis [14], the gimbal spin axis [17], and the rotor spin axis [36] being perpendicular to each of the other axes, this argument is unpersuasive and said previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges that the Severson and Kim references do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Dolude, or recite other specific features for which they are not cited in the grounds of rejection. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and said previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
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.
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 § 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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolude (US 2,720,602), hereinafter referred to as “Dolude”, in view of Severson (US 2018/0183298 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Severson”, and Kim et al. (US 2011/0231085 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Dolude discloses a device for storing received electrical energy as rotational energy and for providing the stored energy as electrical energy on demand (fig. 1-6; col. 3, lines 60-74; kinetic energy of the motor is stored in the flywheels), comprising:
a. a base [3] (fig. 2-3; col. 3, lines 1-15);
b. a frame [12] rotatably-attached to said base [3], allowing rotation of said frame [12] around a frame spin axis [14] directed in a first direction (fig. 2; col. 3, lines 9-15);
c. a gimbal [85] rotatably-attached to said frame [12], allowing rotation of said gimbal [85] around a gimbal spin axis [17] that is perpendicular to said frame spin axis [14] (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 16-20);
d. a rotor [41] rotatably-attached to said gimbal [85], allowing rotation of said rotor [41] around a rotor spin axis [36] that is perpendicular to said gimbal spin axis [17] (fig. 4; col. 3, lines 36-60);
wherein said base [3], said frame [12], said gimbal [85] and said rotor [41] together constitute a gyroscope assembly (col. 3, lines 1-74); and
wherein said frame spin axis [14] (fig. 2-3; col. 4, lines 26-38), said gimbal spin axis [17] (fig. 2-4; col. 3, lines 16-23), and said rotor spin axis [36] are mutually perpendicular (fig. 3-4; col. 4, lines 39-55); and
PNG
media_image1.png
602
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said rotor [41] is a field [43] of a rotating electric machine (fig. 4; col. 3, lines 49-60; the rotor contains field windings); and
said gimbal [85] is a stator [34] of said rotating electric machine, said gimbal [85] comprising functionally-associated stator leads [77,79] to transmit electricity to and from said gimbal [85] (fig. 3-4; col. 4, lines 15-38), said stator leads [77,79] comprising at least two rotary electric connectors [77,79]:
a stator leads gimbal-frame rotary electric connector [77] (fig. 4; col. 4, lines 26-34), and
a stator leads frame-base rotary electric connector [79] (fig. 3; col. 4, lines 34-38).
Dolude does not disclose that said stator [34] is an armature of said rotating electric machine.
Severson discloses a rotating electric machine [10] comprising a rotor [12] and a stator [14], wherein said rotor [12] is the field of said rotating electric machine [10], and said stator [14] is an armature of said rotating electric machine, so that magnets [“permanent magnets mounted in slots”] of said field rotate inside a hollow defined by the windings [11] of said armature (fig. 1A-1C; ¶ 0042-0045).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
952
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 implement the rotor and stator of Dolude having permanent magnets and windings, respectively, as taught by Severson (i.e. reversing the positions of the windings and the magnets), since providing such windings can improve motor performance by utilizing the entire stator slot space (¶ 0005 of Severson). Further, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Dolude, in view of Severson, further discloses that the stator leads [77,79] include a first stator lead [77] and a second stator lead [79] (fig. 3-4; col. 4, lines 26-38), the device further comprising electrical circuitry [74] functionally associated with said first stator lead [77] and said second stator lead [79] (fig. 3; col. 4, lines 19-26).
Dolude, in view of Severson, does not disclose the device further comprising electrical circuitry having at least three states as recited.
Kim discloses a device for storing received electrical energy as rotational energy and for providing the stored energy as electrical energy on demand (fig. 3A-3H; ¶ 0014, 0019), the device further electrical circuitry [410,420,430] (¶ 0040) having at least three states:
i. a first state wherein said electrical machine [220,230] functions as a motor, allowing electricity input to said electrical circuitry [410,420,430] to increase the rate of rotation of said rotor, allowing electrical energy of said electricity to be stored as rotational energy of said rotor (fig. 3A; ¶ 0049-0051);
ii. a second state wherein no electricity passes through said first stator lead and said second stator lead so that said rotor can rotate without inductive braking by interaction with said stator (fig. 3D; ¶ 0049-0051); and
iii. a third state wherein said electrical machine functions [220,230] as a generator, allowing controlled conversion of rotational energy of said rotor to electricity that can be output from said electrical circuitry [410,420,430] (fig. 3B; ¶ 0049-0051).
PNG
media_image3.png
384
690
media_image3.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 implement the electrical circuitry of Dolude operating in three states as taught by Kim, in order to increase the efficiency, stability, and range when equipped on a vehicle (¶ 0027 of Kim).
Regarding claim 3, Dolude, in view of Severson and Kim, discloses the device of claim 1, as stated above, wherein at least one of said rotary electric connectors [77,79] comprises a slip ring (fig. 3; col. 4, lines 23-38).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolude, Severson, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barkalow (US 2,605,641), hereinafter referred to as “Barkalow”.
Regarding claim 4, Dolude, in view of Severson and Kim, discloses the device of claim 1, as stated above.
Dolude does not disclose that at least one of said rotary electric connectors [77,79] comprises a rotary transformer.
Barkalow discloses a gyroscopic device [22,23] comprising a gimbal [22], a rotor [23], and rotary electric connectors [39] (fig. 1-3; col. 2, lines 30-52), wherein at least one of said rotary electric connectors [39] comprises a rotary transformer [39] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 45-75).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
690
media_image4.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 a rotary electrical connector of Dolude as a rotary transformer as taught by Barkalow, in order to step-up power to the rotor thereby bringing it up to speed more quickly (col. 3, lines 45-75).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Gieras et al. (US 2019/0199164 A1) discloses an energy storage device utilizing magnetic bearing in order to minimize frictional losses (fig. 2; ¶ 0002-0004).
Linevich (US 2005/0169756 A1) discloses an energy storage device for use in vehicle (¶ 0001) frames and gimbals for mounting an electrical machine, wherein the rotor [6] serves as the field of the rotating electrical machine and the stator [3] serves as the armature of the rotating electrical machine (fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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