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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed March 28, 2025, with entry of the national stage of PCT/EP2023/076949. Claims 1–9 have been canceled and claims 10–19 have been added. Claims 10–19 are pending and are rejected herein. The drawings and the specification are objected to. This action is non-final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 14 recites that the starting resistor comprises a phase change material. No phase change material is depicted or labeled in any of FIGS. 1–9, which show only the hollow conductor 10 and its supporting structure. Therefore, the phase change material of claim 14 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0023] states that FIG. 2 shows a meandering arrangement of the hollow conductor, whereas paragraph [0032] states that FIG. 2 shows a spiral-shaped arrangement. Likewise, paragraph [0031] describes FIG. 1 as both spiral-shaped and as a series of meandering disks. The descriptions of FIGS. 1 and 2 should be made consistent with each other and with the drawings.
Paragraphs [0014], [0025], and [0038] use the term "restructuring" (e.g., "pot-shaped restructuring") to refer to the pot-like element 12 of FIG. 4. The term appears to be a translation artifact whose meaning is unclear in context; clarification consistent with the original disclosure is requested.
Paragraph [0005], as amended, continues to refer to "dependent claims 2 to 9," which have been canceled.
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 16 and 19 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 16 recites that the electrical conductor has a length which exceeds dimensions of the starting resistor by a multiple. It is unclear which dimension or dimensions of the starting resistor (e.g., axial length, outer diameter, or all dimensions) the length of the conductor is compared against, and the phrase "by a multiple" sets no lower bound; a multiple of one does not "exceed" the compared dimension, and the specification (¶¶[0011], [0016]) provides no standard for ascertaining what multiple is required. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 19 recites a pot-like element. The suffix "-like" renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not apparent what degree of similarity to a pot is required for an element to be "pot-like." See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E). The specification describes the element 12 as "pot-like" and "pot-shaped" (¶¶[0014], [0017], [0034], [0038]) without defining the term.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sting (US 2016/0268880 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sting teaches a synchronous machine(¶¶[0021]–[0022], separately excited synchronous machine, e.g. synchronous motor, having the resistance module; ¶[0074]; Sting claim 36),
comprising a starting resistor(¶¶[0016], [0054], [0073]; FIG. 5, resistance module 22 connected in series with rotor winding 21 to reduce runup current and increase runup torque, bridged by thyristor switch 19 after runup)
comprising an electrical conductor(¶¶[0016]–[0017], [0063]; FIGS. 1–4, electrically-conductive layers 3, 4, 23 of resistive material)
which has a specific electrical resistance that is different than a specific electrical resistance of copper(¶[0027], at least one layer consisting mainly of aluminum; ¶[0028], electric sheet steel; Sting claim 19). A conductor consisting mainly of aluminum, rather than copper, necessarily has a specific electrical resistance different from that of copper, as Applicant's own specification acknowledges (¶[0010], aluminum is a poorer electrical conductor than copper). See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 12/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting further teaches wherein the specific electrical resistance of the electrical conductor is greater than the specific electrical resistance of copper(¶[0027], layer consisting mainly of aluminum; ¶[0020], resistance realized by material selection). A conductor consisting mainly of aluminum necessarily has a greater specific electrical resistance than copper; this is an inherent material property acknowledged by Applicant (¶[0010], aluminum is a poorer electrical conductor than copper). See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 13/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting further teaches wherein the electrical conductor has a specific weight which is lower than a specific weight of copper(¶[0027], aluminum; ¶[0029], comparatively low density of aluminum improving rotor dynamics during runup). A conductor consisting mainly of aluminum necessarily has a lower specific weight than copper; this is an inherent material property acknowledged by Applicant (¶[0010], aluminum is lighter than copper). See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 15/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting further teaches wherein the electrical conductor comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy(¶[0027], at least one layer consisting mainly of aluminum; Sting claim 19).
Regarding claim 16/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting further teaches wherein the electrical conductor has a length which exceeds dimensions of the starting resistor by a multiple(¶[0019], each layer surrounding the axis over at least three-quarters of the circumference; ¶[0037], radially projecting undulations extending the distance the current must cover to increase resistance while retaining a compact design; ¶[0068]; FIGS. 3–4, plural series-connected layers 3, 4, 23, each with undulations 13). The serial current path through the stacked, undulated layers is many times greater than the outer diameter or axial length of the module shown in FIGS. 3–4.
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 11, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sting (US 2016/0268880 A1) in view of Klonowski (US 2020/0076262 A1).
Regarding claim 11/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting's conductive layers are formed of solid flat material or sheet metal(¶¶[0027]–[0028]) but Sting is silent wherein the starting resistor has a hollow structure.
However, in the analogous art of conductors for electric machines subjected to transient heat loads, Klonowski teaches wherein a current-carrying element of an electric machine has a hollow structure(¶[0017], winding of hollow cylindrical wires; ¶[0018], hollow bar winding; ¶[0044], hollow conductive elements; ¶[0050] FIG. 4, conductors 50a, 50b defining housing 51,).
Sting and Klonowski are both directed to electrical conductors of rotating electric machines (Klonowski ¶[0064], applicable to wound-rotor synchronous machines) and both address dissipating the heat generated in a conductor during start-up transients without adding mass (Sting ¶¶[0020], [0029], [0054]; Klonowski ¶¶[0003]–[0004], [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Sting's conductive layers with a hollow structure as taught by Klonowski in order to house a heat sink within the conductor, so as to absorb the heat dissipated during the start-up transient as close as possible to the heating element while reducing the mass and bulk of the machine(Klonowski ¶¶[0027]–[0029], [0044]). Applying Klonowski's known hollow-conductor technique to Sting's known resistance module would have yielded the predictable result of improved transient heat absorption in the starting resistor. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 14/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting is silent wherein the starting resistor comprises a phase change material.
However, Klonowski teaches wherein a current-carrying element of an electric machine comprises a phase change material(¶[0014], heat sink comprising a phase change material disposed inside a conductive element; ¶¶[0044], [0046], heat sink 8 with shell 81 containing phase change material 82 housed inside conductive element 41; FIGS. 2b, 3a–3c; ¶[0056], salts or organic/eutectic compounds with phase change between 100 °C and 300 °C).
One would be motivated to provide Sting's resistance module with a phase change material in order to absorb the heat peak generated during the start-up transient by the latent heat of the phase change, thereby limiting the temperature rise of the conductor while reducing mass and bulk relative to oversizing the conductor(Klonowski ¶¶[0005], [0027]–[0029], [0062]), Sting's module being loaded only during the runup transient(Sting ¶[0054]) and being designed for light weight and good heat dissipation(Sting ¶¶[0020], [0029]).
Regarding claim 17/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting is silent wherein the electrical conductor is designed as a hollow conductor.
However, Klonowski teaches wherein an electrical conductor of an electric machine is designed as a hollow conductor(¶[0017], hollow cylindrical wires; ¶[0044], hollow conductive elements with a heat sink housed inside; ¶[0050], FIG. 4, bar conductors 50a, 50b defining internal housing 51).
One would be motivated to design Sting's conductive layers as hollow conductors in order to house a heat sink inside the conductor itself so that the heat generated during the start-up transient is absorbed as close as possible to its source(Klonowski ¶¶[0027], [0044]).
Regarding claim 18/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting is silent wherein the electrical conductor is manufactured additively.
However, Klonowski teaches wherein a hollow electrical conductor of an electric machine is manufactured additively(¶[0019], winding formed in one piece by an additive manufacturing method; ¶[0052], bar winding formed in one piece by selective laser melting).
One would be motivated to manufacture Sting's conductive layers additively in order to form complex internal shapes within the conductor in a single piece, increasing the exchange surface between the conductor and the heat sink and thereby limiting the temperature rise during the start-up transient(Klonowski ¶[0052]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sting (US 2016/0268880 A1) in view of Kottenhagen (EP 1 071 192 A2; citations are to the EPO machine translation of record).
Regarding claim 19/10, Sting teaches the synchronous machine of claim 10.
Sting secures its conductive layers by a hub 10, fastening elements 14, and a fastening ring 16(¶¶[0030], [0040]–[0047]; FIG. 4).
Sting is silent regarding a pot-like element designed to surround the starting resistor.
However, in the analogous art of starting resistors for synchronous machines, Kottenhagen teaches a synchronous motor(¶[0001]; FIG. 1) comprising a starting resistor RA(¶[0010], starting resistor RA short-circuiting rotor winding R1 during starting, bridged by thyristor T3) and further comprising a pot-like element designed to surround the starting resistor(¶[0012]; FIG. 3, pot T consisting of hub TN, web TS, and ring flange TR, the ring flange shrunk onto starting resistor RA; ¶[0008]).
Sting and Kottenhagen are both directed to starting resistors mounted on the rotor shaft of a synchronous machine and both address retaining the resistor against the centrifugal forces developed during rotation (Sting ¶[0043]; Kottenhagen ¶¶[0007]–[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surround Sting's resistance module with a pot as taught by Kottenhagen in order to mechanically retain the resistor against centripetal forces and mount it compactly on the rotor shaft(Kottenhagen ¶¶[0007]–[0008], [0012]). Substituting Kottenhagen's known pot-type retaining structure for Sting's fastening elements and ring would have yielded the predictable result of a mechanically robust, shaft-mounted starting resistor. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nielson (US 3,575,622) teaches a rotor-mounted resistor assembly for a wound-rotor induction motor in which the resistors are formed of coiled stainless steel bars and are enclosed by a cover attached to the motor housing (col. 2, ll. 20–24; col. 3, ll. 24–29; FIGS. 1, 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. 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://pairdirect. 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).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
