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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that “Schuler does not teach or suggest the claimed trace-rearrangement solution in the context now recited in amended claim1.” Also, the Applicant argues that “The Office action does not provide an adequate reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified smith using Schuler to arrive at the amended claim language. The stated rationale … does not explain why Schuler’s single-phase-per-segment architecture would have led one of ordinary skill to rearrange Smith’s radial trace portions to form spaces delimited by the traces in the specific non-multiple-turns configuration now claimed.” Examiner disagrees. First, the Applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed. Claim 1 does not require that the coils are circumferentially skewed between layers, which overlap with each other. Second, the rejection clearly states the advantages for combining Smith and Schuler. Simply stating that the rationale does not work without providing reasons is not evidence. The Applicant must provide factual evidence when trying to prove why a combination does not work. See MPEP 716.01(c) and 2145 I. Third, Smith discloses coil connections (324A, B, C) which are placed between the coil segments that extend in a radial direction to overlap with other coil turns. Schuler discloses coil connections (51) which extend in an axial direction to not overlap with other coil turns. Schuler’s disclosure of the coil connections is applied to Smith to disclose claim 1. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 11,502,583 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an axial field rotary energy device (100) comprising:
a rotor (110) having an axis of rotation (120) and a magnet (130);
a stator (400) coaxial with the rotor (110), the stator (400) comprising printed circuit board panels (PCB stator panels), each PCB panel is assigned to one electrical phase (col. 4, ll. 54-55), and each PCB panel comprises conductive layers (420.1-420.3), each conductive layer (420.1-420.3) comprises coils, and each coil has conductive traces (432) with turns (FIG. 6A);
each coil comprises a number of turns (FIG. 6A; five turns) that is not a multiple of a number of electrical phases (three phase) of the stator (400); and
radial portions of the conductive traces (432) are arranged to define spaces around some of the a plurality of vias (430.1-430.3) so that vias coupled to coils in one phase do not intersect coils from another phase (FIG. 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6/1, Lee was discussed above in claim 1. Lee further discloses each of the spaces comprises a wedge-like space (FIG. 3B, 3C, 6A, the space narrow as it goes into the page).
Regarding claim 13/6, Lee was discussed above in claim 6. Lee further discloses the radial portions are rearranged to define the wedge-like space around a via (430.1-430.3) coupled to a coil in another electrical phase, wherein the wedge-like space is delimited by traces (432) immediately adjacent to the via (430.1-430.3) and provides sufficient clearance around the via (430.1-430.3) so that the via does not intersect the immediately adjacent traces (432; FIG. 6A).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 8,736,133 B1) in view of Schuler et al. (US 2019/0238018 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an axial field rotary energy device (200) comprising:
a rotor (202) having an axis (204) of rotation and a magnet (203);
a stator (205) coaxial with the rotor (202), the stator (205) comprising printed circuit board panels (layers; FIG. 4), each PCB panel is assigned to one electrical phase (A-C), and each PCB panel comprises conductive layers, each conductive layer comprises coils (321, 331), and each coil (321, 331) has conductive traces with turns (323A-C, 333A-C);
each coil (49) comprises a number of turns (two turns) that is not a multiple of a number of electrical phases of the stator (205).
Smith does not disclose radial portions of the conductive traces are arranged to define spaces around a plurality of vias so that vias coupled to coils in one phase do not intersect coils from another phase.
Schuler discloses radial portions of the conductive traces (49) are arranged to define spaces around a plurality of vias (59) so that vias (59) coupled to coils (49) in one phase do not intersect coils (49) from another phase (FIG. 6D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Schuler to disclose radial portions of the conductive traces are arranged to define spaces around a plurality vias so that vias coupled to coils in one phase do not intersect coils from another phase, for the advantages of a cost effective and simpler manufacturing process (¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 2/1, Smith in view of Schuler was discussed above in claim 1. Smith further discloses the stator (205) is a 3-phase stator (phases A-C) and is angularly spaced apart by 120 electrical degrees.
Smith does not disclose the spaces are spaced apart by 120 electrical degrees.
Schuler discloses the spaces (location of vias 59) are spaced apart by 120 electrical degrees (each adjacent spaces connect different phases at 120 electrical degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Schuler to disclose the spaces are spaced apart by 120 electrical degrees, for the advantages of a cost effective and simpler manufacturing process (¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 3/1, Smith in view of Schuler was discussed above in claim 1. Smith further discloses each coil (49) is formed with one single continuous trace (49; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 4/1, Smith in view of Schuler was discussed above in claim 1. Smith further discloses each coil (49) is formed with two or more parallel traces (49; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 6/1, Smith in view of Schuler was discussed above in claim 1. Schuler further discloses each of the spaces comprises a wedge-like space (FIG. 6D; the space narrows towards the coil).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the specific limitation of “the inner edge (662) approximately follows the contour of the coils (650) and creates a space (665) between outer traces of the coils (650) and the inner edge (662) of the partial ring (660), and the space (665) has a uniform width (W) that provides sufficient clearance (FIG. 9E)” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
The closest prior art Jore et al. (US 2018/0219445 A1) discloses a partial ring, but does not disclose the partial ring having an inner edge that contours around the coil to create a space that has a uniform width.
Claims 8-12 are allowable for depending upon claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights