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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: MANY DRWINGS WITH NO REFERENCE NUMBERS, EXCITATION CIRCUIT NOT SHOWN AS CLAIMED IN CLAIM 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1,3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al. (US 20150115757 hereinafter "Reddy") in view of Reuting (US Patent US 3999107A hereinafter “Reuting”).
Re-claim 1, Reddy discloses a generator-motor (10) comprising: a stationary magnetic core (12) acting as a stator (12), the stationary magnetic core being configured as a hollow cylinder (annotated fig.1) having two annular bases (at least 2, 13); a movable magnetic core (14) acting as a rotor (14 is rotor), the movable magnetic core being configured as a cylindrical rod (see fig.2) provided with a set of protrusions (48), the movable magnetic core (14) being configured to perform a reciprocating motion (rotating motion) through the two annular bases of the hollow cylinder (13); a permanent ring magnet (50) arranged in the hollow cylinder (40) around the movable magnetic core (44); a first generating winding (18,52) extending along an outer surface of the permanent ring magnet (outside of 32,50); and a second generating winding (annotated fig.1) extending along an inner surface of the permanent ring magnet (annotated fig.1) around the movable magnetic core (14), the second generating winding and the first generating winding being connected in series (annotated fig.1);
Reddy fails to explicitly teach a reciprocating motion.
However, Reuting teaches the mover doing reciprocating motion (Linear or rotational, Description of invention, Movable element can do linear or rotational movement to complete flux path, see Col.1, L.39-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to show the reciprocating motion of Reddy wherein the motion is reciprocating motion as taught by Reuting which teach motion can be linear or rotational of movable element (Reuting, Col.1, L.35-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
126
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 3, Reddy as modified discloses the generator-motor of claim 1, wherein the hollow cylinder has a radial annular cut (cut for shaft inside rotor, where 30 is).
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Reuting, and in further view of Szabo (PCT WO 9213383 hereinafter “Szabo”).
Re-claim 2, Reddy as modified discloses the generator-motor of claim 1.
Reddy fails to explicitly teach an excitation winding placed between the first generating winding and the outer surface of the permanent ring magnet, and wherein the excitation winding is fed through a thyristor-controlled rectifier circuit.
However, Szabo teaches an excitation winding (24) placed between the first generating winding (28) and the outer surface of the permanent ring magnet (20, is replaced by permanent magnet), and wherein the excitation winding is fed through a thyristor-controlled rectifier circuit (32, used as thyristor circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the structure of circuit of Reddy wherein an excitation winding placed between the first generating winding and the outer surface of the permanent ring magnet, and wherein the excitation winding is fed through a thyristor-controlled rectifier circuit as taught by Szabo to reduce the effect of AC on excitation current of generators (Szabo, Page 2, L.5-15).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
1120
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
451
447
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. 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.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights