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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hubless flywheels” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Rotors 50a, 50b, depicted in FIG.’s 1, 3 & 6, appear to be the element referred to as hubless flywheels in claim 1. However, these elements are depicted with hubs where the blades are attached at the root.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “flywheels” recited in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis in the specification.1
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “thrust bearing” should read --thrust bearings--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 8-9, the term “the electromagnetic cylinder” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because an electromagnetic cylinder has not been previously recited. Correction is required. It is suggested that the term be amended to read “the field coils in the electromagnetic duct”.
In claim 3, line 2, “at least one thrust bearing” is indefinite because it is not clear if this thrust bearing is one of the previously recited thrust bearings from claim 1 or another bearing all together. For examination, the former is assumed. This double inclusion makes the scope of the claim uncertain. Correction is required. It is suggested that the claim be amended to read “wherein the plurality of thrust bearings include at least one thrust bearing that centers”.
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 (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.
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 Hartman (U. S. Patent No. 6,000,915) in view of Samuelson (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0226085).
As to claim 1, Hartman discloses a gyroscopic air handler (FIG.’s 1-8, Abstract, col. 6, ll. 35-40, ”air or other gases”; preamble term gyroscopic interpreted broadly as a rotatable mass; multiple embodiments disclosed), comprising:
a hubless magnetic chamber 68 (embodiment of FIG.’s 4 & 5, col. 8, ll. 31-40, formed by tube 68 that does not appear to have hub(s));
a plurality of magnets 74 (col. 10, ln. 27, tube magnets 74) affixed to a wall of the chamber 68 (as shown);
a plurality of hubless flywheels 70 (col. 8, ln. 59, impellers 70 form recited hubless flywheels under broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms) rotatably mounted to the wall of the chamber 68 (as shown) and configured to create air flow through the chamber when rotated (as shown and described under normal operation);
an electromagnetic duct 64 (col. 8, ln. 36, formed by housing 64) having field coils 80, 81 (col. 10, ll. 19-27, formed by wiring 81 and core 80 of electromagnet, wiring 80 is known to be arranged as coil windings based upon common knowledge in electrical motor stator design2) integrated within its composite matrix 82 (col. 10, ll. 28-29, plastic material 82 interpreted as a composite matrix);
a plurality of thrust bearing (col. 9, ll. 36-40, “bearing at either end of the housing”) that support the chamber 68 within the electromagnetic duct 64.
Hartman is silent as to a motor controller configured to send phased electrical energy to the electromagnetic cylinder to cause rotation of the magnetic chamber and hubless flywheels. Samuelson teaches a rotational ducted fan (see title) including motor controller 906 configured to send phased electrical energy (para. 0072, “energy to coils”) to an electromagnetic cylinder 110/410 to cause rotation of a magnetic chamber 202/414 and a hubless flywheel 106. Samuelson teaches that the motor controller provides rotational drive creating kinetic energy (para. 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the motor controller of Samuelson in the pump of Hartman to provide rotational drive by controlling electrical energy to the motor, thereby creating kinetic energy as taught by Samuelson, Id.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (U. S. Patent No. 6,000,915) in view of Samuelson (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0226085) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pipkorn et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0237656).
As to claim 2, Hartman further discloses the composite matrix 82 (FIG. 4, col. 10, ll. 28-29, “plastic material’) of the electromagnetic duct 64 encapsulates field coils 80. However, the applied art is silent as to the duct absorbs heat generated in the field coils. Pipkorn et al. teaches a fan (see title) with a plastic duct 36 that absorbs heat generated by field coils 47 (FIG. 3, para. 0027, thermal conductor in field coils 47). Pipkorn teaches absorbing generated heat enhances heat transfer (para.’s 0025 & 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heat generated by the coils absorbed by the duct thereby enhancing heat transfer as taught by Pipkorn, Id.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (U. S. Patent No. 6,000,915) in view of Samuelson (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0226085) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Scroggins (U. S. Patent No. 9,425,660).
As to claim 3, Hartman discloses at least one thrust bearing (col. 9, ll. 36-40, a “bearing at either end of the housing” will absorb axial movement, i.e. thrust) that centers the magnetic chamber 68 within the electromagnetic duct 64, and wherein the magnets 74 affixed to the wall (cylindrical wall of 68 as shown), of the chamber 68 are configured to create gyroscopic inertia (inertia is an inherent physical property of a rotating element due to its mass) when the chamber 68 is rotated (col. 9, ll. 10-12). However, the applied art is silent as to reducing stress on at least one thrust bearing. Scroggins teaches an electric motor system (col. 1, l. 51-52), that uses rotating windings 214, (FIG. 2, i.e. “gyroscopic flywheel principle”, see col. 4, ll. 50-60) to reduce stress on at least one bearing 208 (col. 2, ll. 6-14 and col. 4, ll. 50-60). Scroggins further teaches using gyroscopic inertia to reduce bearing stress__reducing wear and increasing the life of the bearings (col. 1, ll. 51-55). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ gyroscopic inertia to reduce bearing stress on the thrust bearings of Hartman in order to reduce wear and increase the life of the bearings as taught by Scroggins, Id.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogasawara et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0299042) discloses a ducted fan (FIG.’s 1-6, Abstract) representing the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 The specification refers to “rotors”.
2 Refer to “windings” as described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stator.