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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on February 7, 2025. In view of this communication, claims 1-16 are now pending in the application.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "concentrated winding". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-16 are solely rejected on being dependent on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 recites an "electromagnetic rotary drive which is a temple motor" comprising a magnetic levitation device of claim 14, but does not recite any additional limitations of said magnetic levitation device. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated HOLENSTIEN (US 20170302145 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HOLENSTIEN teaches:
A magnetic levitation device(Fig 4; 1) for contactless magnetic levitation of a rotor(Fig 4; 3), which has a disk-shaped or ring-shaped magnetically effective core[0004], comprising:
a stator (Fig 4; 2) with a cup-shaped recess arranged at an axial end of the stator (Fig 4; 2) and into which the rotor (Fig 4; 3) is capable of being inserted[0194], the stator (Fig 4; 2)having a plurality of coil cores(Fig 4; 4), each of the plurality of coils (Fig 4; 4) having a longitudinal leg (Fig 4; 41)and a pole piece(Fig 4; 45), for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 4; 4), the longitudinal leg (Fig 4; 41) extends from a first end (Fig 4; 43)in an axial direction (Fig 4; A)to a second end(Fig 4; 44), and a contact surface (Fig 4; 411) is arranged at the second end(Fig 4; 44), and each pole piece (Fig 4; 45) extends from the contact surface (Fig 4; 411) at least partially in a radial direction to an end face(Fig 4; 421), the radial direction(Fig 4; C) being perpendicular to the axial direction(Fig 4; A), the end face (Fig 4; 421)is arranged around the cup-shaped recess[0127], and at least one concentrated winding (Fig 4; 61) is arranged at each longitudinal leg(Fig 4; 41), the at least one concentrated winding(Fig 4; 61) surrounding a respective longitudinal leg(Fig 4; 41), for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 4; 4), the longitudinal leg (Fig 4; 41) is made of a first material [0107]and the pole piece is made (Fig 4; 45)of a second material[0109], the first material and the second material being different.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 4; 4), the longitudinal leg(Fig 4; 41) is made of sheet metal elements, and the elements are stacked in a circumferential direction of the stator(Fig 7)[0107].
PNG
media_image2.png
408
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein the first material is an electrical sheet metal[0107]
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art 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
Regarding claim 5, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 4; 4), the contact surface(Fig 4; 411) is planar and is arranged at a surface of longitudinal leg (Fig 4; 41)which is perpendicular to the radial direction(Fig 4; C).
Regarding claim 6, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 4; 4), the contact surface(Fig 4; 411) is arranged at a surface of the longitudinal leg (Fig 4; 41)which stands perpendicular on the axial direction(Fig 4; A)(this arrangement is shown in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 9, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 12; 4), the pole piece (Fig 12; 42)is angled(Fig 12; 49), and the pole piece (Fig 12; 42)comprises two partial pieces, one partial piece extending in the radial direction and an other partial piece extending in the axial direction(Fig 12)[0136].
PNG
media_image3.png
425
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein each the coil core(Fig 12; 4) of the plurality of coil cores(Fig 12; 4) has a rounding at an axially upper end (Fig 12; 49)redirecting the coil core from the axial direction to the radial direction(shown in Fig 12).
Regarding claim 14, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein the rotor(Fig 4; 3) is capable of being driven magnetically without contact for rotation [abstract]about the axial direction (Fig 4; A)by a torque generated by the stator(Fig 4; 2).
Regarding claim 16, HOLENSTIEN teaches:
An electromagnetic rotary drive which is a temple motor[0003], the electromagnetic rotary drive comprising:
a magnetic levitation device according to claim 14;
the rotor (Fig 4; 3)with the disk-shaped or ring-shaped magnetically effective core[0004], the rotor (Fig 4; 3)configured to be inserted into the cup-shaped recess, and is the rotor (Fig 4; 3)of the electromagnetic rotary drive[abstract].
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLENSTIEN (US 20170302145 A1).
Regarding claim 4, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein the second material is a powder composite material[0167].
HOLENSTIEN discloses the claimed invention except for the pole piece being made of a powder composite material. HOLENSTIEN teaches that it is known to have the magnetically effective core manufactured by casting, stamping, pressing of soft magnetic powder as set forth in paragraph [0167]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pole piece being made of a powder composite material, as taught by HOLENSTIEN since it is a technique already shown in the art.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art 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
Regarding claim 7, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils, the contact surface is angled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HOLENSTIEN because they disclosed the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1 except for the shape of the contact surface being angled. It would have been an obvious matter of making the contact surface angled, in order to provide more surface area on the contact surface for adhesion. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1:
wherein the second material is a soft magnetic powder composite material[0167].
HOLENSTIEN discloses the claimed invention except for the pole piece being made of a soft powder composite material. HOLENSTIEN teaches that it is known to have the magnetically effective core manufactured by casting, stamping, pressing of soft magnetic powder as set forth in paragraph [0167]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pole piece being made of a soft powder composite material, as taught by HOLENSTIEN since it is a technique already shown in the art.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art 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
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLENSTIEN (US 20170302145 A1) in view of SUN (US 20230238857 A1).
Regarding claim 11, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 1.
HOLENSTIEN does not teach:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils, the end face of the pole piece is a curved surface.
SUN teaches:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 2; 11), the end face of the pole piece is a curved surface(Fig 2; 112).
PNG
media_image4.png
339
461
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 HOLENSTIEN by using the curved and enlarged end face of the pole piece taught by SUN, in order to increase motor stability and decrease large torque fluctuation [SUN 0003].
Regarding claim 12, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 10.
HOLENSTIEN does not teach:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils, the curved surface of the end face is coaxially with the cup-shaped recess.
SUN teaches:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 2; 11), the curved surface (Fig 2; 112)of the end face is coaxially with the cup-shaped recess(shown in Fig 2).
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 HOLENSTIEN by using the curved and enlarged end face of the pole piece taught by SUN, in order to increase motor stability and decrease large torque fluctuation [SUN 0003].
Regarding claim 13, HOLENSTIEN teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 10.
HOLENSTIEN does not teach:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils, the end face is wider with respect to the circumferential direction than a maximum extension of the contact surface in the circumferential direction.
SUN teaches:
wherein for each of the plurality of coils(Fig 2; 11), the end face (Fig 2; 112)is wider with respect to the circumferential direction than a maximum extension of the contact surface (Fig 2; 111)in the circumferential direction.
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 HOLENSTIEN by using the curved and enlarged end face of the pole piece taught by SUN, in order to increase motor stability and decrease large torque fluctuation [SUN 0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches the magnetic levitation device according to claim 10.
However, the prior art does not teach: wherein for each of the plurality of coils, the contact surface has two partial surfaces, the first partial surface is perpendicular to the axial direction and the second partial surface is perpendicular to the radial direction. (The underlined is allowable subject matter.)
Claim 8 is objected to, and not rejected, because the limitation of two partial surfaces being on normal planes to each other is too specific which makes it novel.
Claims 8 are objected to, and not rejected, because they depend from a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-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, 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 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
