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 § 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 1-14 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 "the coil cords" in last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purpose “the coil cords” is being interpreted as “the coil cores”
Claims 3-6 and 9-11 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holenstein (US 2019/0356195 A1) in view of Bitsi (US 2020/0336025 A1).
Holenstein teaches a magnetic levitation device 1 (Figs.2-8) for contactless magnetic levitation of a rotor 3 (¶ 67), which comprises a disk-shaped or ring-shaped magnetically effective core 31, the magnetic levitation device 1 comprising: a stator 2 comprising a plurality of coil cores 4, each coil core 4 of the plurality of coil cores 4 made of sheet metal elements (¶ 73), the sheet metal elements being stacked in a circumferential direction of the stator 2 (Figs.6-8 and claim 9), each coil core 4 of the plurality of coil cores having a first lateral boundary surface and a second lateral boundary surface (Fig.3), each coil core 4 of the plurality of coil cores 4 comprising a longitudinal leg 41 extending from a first end in an axial direction to a second end, and a transverse leg 42 arranged at the second end, and extending in a radial direction (Fig.4 and ¶ 71), the radial direction being perpendicular to the axial direction (¶ 71), at least one concentrated winding 61 is provided on each longitudinal leg 41 (Figs.3, 4), and surrounding a respective longitudinal leg 41, the stator 2 including a cup-shaped recess (Figs.2, 3) into which the rotor 3 is capable of being inserted, the cup-shaped recess arranged at an axial end of the stator 2, and the transverse legs 42 of the plurality of coil cores 4 are arranged around the cup-shaped recess (Figs.2, 3)
Holenstein does not teach at least one of the first or the second lateral boundary surfaces having at least one slot.
Bitsi teaches at lateral boundary surfaces having at least one slot (S) (or 160) (Figs.4, 5). Bitsi further suggests that such structure can reduce eddy current loss while at the same time reducing the magnetic conductivity and mechanical strength of the stator core as little as possible (¶ 6).
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 Holenstein by having at least one of the first or the second lateral boundary surfaces having at least one slot, as taught by Bitsi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slot (S))]
PNG
media_image1.png
636
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 2/1, Holenstein in view of Bitsi has been discussed above. Holenstein further teaches the sheet metal elements are made of electrical sheet metal (¶ 73).
RE claim 7/1, as discussed above, Bitsi teaches an extension of the at least one slot (S or 160) (see annotated Fig.4 and Fig.5, 6) is shorter than a distance of the first lateral boundary surface from the second lateral boundary surface when viewed in the circumferential direction of the stator.
RE claim 8/1, as discussed above, Bitsi teaches the at least one slot 160 includes several slots arranged parallel or at least approximately parallel to each other (Fig.5).
RE claim 12/1, as discussed above, Bitsi teaches at least one slot (S, 160) is provided in the first lateral boundary surface and in the second lateral boundary surface (Figs.4-6).
RE claim 13/1, Holenstein in view of Bitsi has been discussed above. Holenstein further teaches the rotor is capable of being driven magnetically without contact for rotation about the axial direction by a torque generated by the stator 2 (bearingless, contactless, see ¶ 8, 9).
RE claim 14/13, Holenstein in view of Bitsi has been discussed above. Holenstein further teaches an electromagnetic rotary drive, which is a temple motor (¶ 23, 24), the electromagnetic rotary drive comprising: a magnetic levitation device according to claim 13; and a rotor 3 with the disk-shaped or ring-shaped magnetically effective core 31, the rotor 3 configured to be inserted into the cup-shaped recess, and is the rotor 2 of the electromagnetic rotary drive.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holenstein in view of Bitsi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Filatov et al. (US 2012/0299422 A1).
RE claim 9/1, Holenstein in view of Bitsi has been discussed above. Holenstein does not teach each coil core of the plurality of coil cords has an extending off at an axially upper end, the extending off redirecting the coil core from the axial direction to the radial direction.
Holenstein does not teach the extending off portion (radial portion) has rounding configuration.
Filatov suggests that the shape of the extending portion 3b has rounding configuration (Fig.1). The shape of the extending portion of the core can be adjusted to optimize the direction of the flux between stator/rotor.
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 Holenstein in view of Bitsi by having the extending off portion (radial portion) has rounding configuration, as suggested by Filatov, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holenstein in view of Bitsi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stettler et al. (US 2022/0341428 A1).
RE claim 11/1, Holenstein in view of Bitsi has been discussed above. Holenstein does not teach the at least one concentrated winding includes two concentrated windings provided on each longitudinal leg of the plurality of coil cords, each of the two concentrated windings surrounds a respective longitudinal leg, and are arranged adjacent to one another with respect to the axial direction.
Stettler teaches one concentrated winding 61 (Fig.14) includes two concentrated windings 61, 62 provided on each longitudinal leg of the plurality of coil cords, each of the two concentrated windings surrounds a respective longitudinal leg, and are arranged adjacent to one another with respect to the axial direction (Fig.14) for the purpose of generating the drive field and the control field, it is possible on the one hand to use two different winding systems, namely one to generate the drive field and one to generate the control field.
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 Holenstein in view of Bitsi by having the at least one concentrated winding includes two concentrated windings provided on each longitudinal leg of the plurality of coil cords, each of the two concentrated windings surrounds a respective longitudinal leg, and are arranged adjacent to one another with respect to the axial direction, as taught by Stettler, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE claim 3/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, for each coil cord of the plurality of coil cords, the at least one slot extends only in the transverse leg
RE claim 4/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, for each coil cord of the plurality of coil cords, the at least one slot extends in the transverse leg and in the longitudinal leg.
Claim 5 is allowable for its dependency on claim 1.
RE claim 6/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, each coil cord of the plurality of coil cords, the at least one slot extends from the first lateral boundary surface to the second lateral boundary surface
RE claim 10/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, a back iron is arranged at the first end of each of the longitudinal legs of the plurality of coil cords and connects the first ends of the longitudinal legs, the back iron is ring-shaped with a metallic strip extending from a radially inner beginning to a radially outer end, and the strip forms several strip windings which lie flat against one another with respect to the radial direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights