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
Claims 1–21 are pending in the application filed April 5, 2025. Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–14 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 3, 7, 8, 15 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. 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. Corrected drawings are required.
Objection 1 — interlocking elements (claim 7) not depicted or labeled. Claim 7 recites "the first bridge element (24a) and the second bridge element (24b) each comprise interlocking elements for preventing rotational displacement of the first bridge element (24a) to the second bridge element (24b)." The interlocking elements are not depicted or labeled in any figure of record; paragraph [0096] describes the interlocking element as "not represented." Corrected drawings depicting and labeling this element are required.
The drawings are further objected to for the following informalities:
FIG. 8B includes the annotation "should be 22 (rotor)" beside reference character 22a. An editorial correction note is not a suitable descriptive legend and must be removed. See 37 CFR 1.84(o).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 25a (FIG. 7B) and 34b (FIG. 8C).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 24d has been used to designate both the extensions for attaching the generator to a mechanical structure (paragraphs [00100], [00141], [00165]; FIGS. 8A–8C, 12) and the through hole rendering the rotor visible (paragraph [00107]; list of reference numbers).
FIGS. 8D, 9B, 10C and 11A–11B contain garbled characters and reference characters that are not plain and legible. See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1).
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 [0089] refers to "the teeth of the second bridge element 24a"; reference character 24b designates the second bridge element.
Paragraph [0099] refers to "a second of these ball bearings 24b"; reference character 32b designates the second ball bearing.
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 1–21 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 on the rotor yoke (22a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the rotor yoke" in the claim.
Claim 1 recites such that the coil is located non-coaxial with, offset from or away from a direct influence of the alternating magnetic field. The claim does not identify what the coil is non-coaxial with or offset from, and the grammar permits reading these terms as relating to the alternating magnetic field, which has no axis. Further, "away from a direct influence" is a term of degree for which neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for ascertaining how far from the rotor, or how weakly coupled to the field, the coil must be; the specification describes the coil only as remote "to be away from a direct influence of the alternating magnetic field" (paragraph [0009]). It is also unclear whether "the coil" refers to each of, or only one of, the "at least one coil (26)."
Claim 1 recites interdigitated between both halves of the magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge (24a, 24b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for "both halves." The claim recites "at least a first and second bridge elements," which encompasses bridges having more than two bridge elements (see paragraphs [00111]–[00112] and intermediate bridge element 24a'), and it is unclear which elements constitute the two "halves" between which the teeth must be interdigitated.
Claim 2 recites the teeth of the first bridge element (24a) and the teeth of the second bridge element (24b). It is unclear whether "thickness" is measured parallel to the axis of rotation or in the plane of the bridge element: paragraphs [0022] and [0094] distinguish the thickness of a bridge element from its width, whereas paragraph [00159] identifies thicknesses T1, T2 in FIG. 18, which are dimensions in the plane of the bridge element as seen in top view.
Claim 4 recites non-parallel or non-coaxial to the axis of rotation (22c) of the at least one rotor (22) so that said central axis is twisted with respect to the axis of rotation (22c). A central axis that is non-coaxial with but parallel to the axis of rotation is not twisted with respect to that axis, so that the alternative "non-coaxial" is inconsistent with the required result that the central axis be "twisted," and the scope of the claim cannot be determined. Further, claim 1 already requires the central axis to lie outside an envelope of the rotor.
Claim 5 recites passes through the overall geometrical center, or barycenter, of all of the central axes (26a). The specification states that the barycenter is "a non-physical center of the combined coil effects and not merely the combined geometrical center" (paragraph [00131]), so that the alternatives have different meanings, and neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for locating the "barycenter" of a set of axes.
Claim 6 recites selected from one of a group of materials consisting of Fe, Co, Cr or Ni and a metalloid, preferably C, B, Si, V, M or an alloy of at least two of these materials. A description of examples or preferences, as introduced by "preferably," following a broader recitation renders the claim unclear as to whether the narrower recitation is a required limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, "M" is not the symbol of a chemical element, V is not a metalloid, and it is unclear whether the material is a single member selected from the group or must include one of Fe, Co, Cr or Ni together with a metalloid.
Claim 11 recites comprising at least one coil (26) and a rotor (22). It is unclear whether the coil and rotor of claim 11 are the "at least one coil (26)" and "at least one rotor (22)" of claim 1 or are additional elements.
Claims 12 and 18 recite the ferromagnetic bridges, and claims 16, 17, 20 and 21 recite the ferromagnetic bridge. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations, because claim 1 recites "a magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge." It is further unclear whether the plural "bridges" of claims 12 and 18 requires more than one bridge.
Claim 16 recites because the at least one coil is in the vicinity of the rotor. This is inconsistent with claim 1, which requires the at least one coil to be remote from the at least one rotor and away from a direct influence of the alternating magnetic field, so that the scope of claim 16 cannot be determined.
Claim 18 recites couplers in form of protrusions or teeth which extend radially. It is unclear whether these are the couplers recited in claim 1 or additional couplers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the radial magnetic field of the rotor and for the concentrically located rotor, and it is unclear with what the rotor is concentric. Further, a certain free space is a term of degree for which neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard.
Claim 19 recites a cylindrical cage-like structure. The addition of the word "like" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim 21 recites an outer diameter of 1 to 2mm, preferably 1.4 to 1.5mm. A broad range followed by a narrower range introduced by "preferably" renders the claim unclear as to whether the narrower range is a required limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05(c), subsection I.
Claims 3, 7–10 and 13-15 depend from claim 1 and are rejected as incorporating the indefiniteness of claim 1 identified above.
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, 9–14 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (DE 1096482 B) in view of Knapen (US 4,908,808) and Tu (US 4,799,003). Citations to Lange are to the paragraph numbers of the English machine translation provided with this action; the single drawing sheet of Lange contains an unnumbered sectional view and an unnumbered plan view, referred to herein as the "sectional view" and the "plan view."
In view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 1 is interpreted for purposes of applying the prior art as reciting "a rotor yoke," as requiring that the at least one coil not be coaxial with the at least one rotor and that its central axis lie outside an envelope of the rotor, and as reading "both halves" on the first and second bridge elements. Consistent with paragraph [00159] and FIG. 18, the "thickness" of claim 2 is interpreted as including the dimensions T1, T2 of the bridge element in its own plane. Consistent with paragraph [00121], claim 18 is interpreted as reciting couplers that radially or annularly occupy a space defined concentrically around the rotor.
Regarding claim 1, Lange teaches a synchronous miniature electric machine(¶¶[0001], [0004]; sectional and plan views; stator coil 1, stator guide plates 2, 3, rotor on shaft 10) comprising:
at least one rotor (22) having an axis of rotation (22c) and comprising one or more magnetic elements (22b) disposed around the axis of rotation (22c)(¶[0004]; sectional view; axially magnetized ring 12 and rotor pole plates 13, 14 carried on rotor shaft 10),
the one or more magnetic elements (22b) defining pole pairs adapted to create an alternating magnetic field when rotated around the axis of rotation (22c);(¶¶[0001], [0004]; plan view; rotor pole teeth 15, 16 of alternating polarity on the rotor circumference),
at least one coil (26), having a central axis (26a), said at least one coil (26) being remote from said at least one rotor (22) such that the coil is located non-coaxial with, offset from or away from a direct influence of the alternating magnetic field such that central axis (26a) is outside an envelope of the rotor, and(¶¶[0002]–[0003]; sectional and plan views; rotor mounted not concentrically with stator coil 1 but outside it, rotor shaft 10 held outside the axis of coil 1),
a magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge, comprising at least a first and second bridge elements (24a, 24b) joining said at least one rotor (22) to said at least one coil (26),(¶¶[0003]–[0004]; sectional view; magnetic stator guide plates 2, 3 on the end faces of coil 1 holding rotor bearings 8, 9 in brackets 6, 7),
said at least first and second bridge elements (24a, 24b) comprising couplers in form of protrusions or teeth (24c) in the vicinity of and located to encircle said one or more magnetic elements (22b)(¶¶[0001], [0004]; plan view; stator poles 4, 5 bent from guide plates 2, 3 to form a stator pole tooth cage in which the rotor rotates),
wherein the protrusions or teeth (24c) are interdigitated between both halves of the magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge (24a, 24b)(¶[0004]; sectional view; stator poles 4 of plate 2 and stator poles 5 of plate 3, flux passing from each pole 4 to the adjacent poles 5),
and a total number of the protrusions or teeth (24c) corresponds to double the number of pole pairs defined by the one or more magnetic elements (22b).(¶[0003]; rotor pole teeth and stator pole teeth present in the same even number, one stator pole tooth per rotor pole).
Lange is silent wherein the one or more magnetic elements are disposed on the rotor yoke (22a), because the magnet ring 12 of Lange is carried on an intermediate piece 11 of magnetically non-conductive material (¶[0004]). Lange is further silent wherein the device is An electric generator device (20) in which the couplers are arranged so that a voltage within the at least one coil (26) is induced due to the alternating magnetic field within said magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge (24a, 24b) caused by the rotation of the one or more magnetic elements (22b) around the axis of rotation (22c), because Lange describes only driving the rotor by the alternating field generated by the energized stator coil 1 (¶¶[0003]–[0004]).
However, in the analogous art of miniature permanent-magnet electric machines for timepieces, Knapen teaches a rotor 2 whose permanent-magnetic poles 8, 9 are arranged alternately as North and South poles over its circumference in a thin, radially magnetized layer 14(Knapen col. 1, ll. 28–31; col. 4, ll. 9–14; FIG. 2), the poles being disposed around the axis of rotation on the rotor yoke (22a)(Knapen col. 3, ll. 50–54; col. 4, ll. 9–14; FIG. 2; poles 8, 9 on the radial outer side of soft-magnetic ring 7). Lange and Knapen are in the same field of miniature permanent-magnet electric machines in which a coil located beside the rotor is coupled to the rotor through soft-magnetic stator parts(Lange ¶¶[0002]–[0004]; Knapen col. 3, ll. 50–57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the alternating rotor poles of Lange on a soft-magnetic ring, as taught by Knapen, in order to create a magnetic induction of sufficient magnitude by providing a path for the magnetic flux from rotor origin as well as from stator origin(Knapen col. 2, ll. 4–10), while retaining the rotor poles and stator pole teeth in the same even number as taught by Lange(Lange ¶[0003]).
Further, in the analogous art of miniature electric machines for timepieces, Tu teaches An electric generator device (20)(Tu col. 6, ll. 18–42; FIG. 1; generator 2 similar to timepiece stepping motors, rotor 3 with permanent magnet 3a driven by barrel spring 1 through gear-train 4) in which a stator 5 magnetically couples magnet 3a to coil 6 through pole pieces whose opposite ends are connected to the core of coil 6(Tu col. 6, ll. 43–51; FIG. 1), so that a voltage within the at least one coil (26) is induced due to the alternating magnetic field within said magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge (24a, 24b) caused by the rotation of the one or more magnetic elements (22b) around the axis of rotation (22c)(Tu col. 6, ll. 59–61; FIG. 1; alternating voltage generated by coil 6 in response to rotation of magnet 3a). Tu further teaches that the permanent magnet of the generator rotor may comprise p pairs of magnetic poles(Tu col. 26, ll. 51–57).
Lange, Knapen and Tu are in the same field of miniature permanent-magnet electric machines in which a coil is coupled to a rotating permanent magnet through soft-magnetic stator parts, and Tu expressly recognizes that machines of the timepiece stepping-motor type serve as generators(Tu col. 2, l. 60 – col. 3, l. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the rotor of the Lange–Knapen machine by a mechanical energy source and to collect the voltage induced in its coil, thereby using the machine as an electric generator device, as taught by Tu, in order to replace the cells and batteries of portable devices such as electronic timepieces, which have a limited life span and may leak, with a rotary electric-energy generator driven by a mechanical energy source(Tu col. 1, ll. 8–18). This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 2/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches wherein said first bridge element (24a) forms a first plane orthogonal to said axis of rotation (22c), said second bridge element (24b) forms a second plane orthogonal to said axis of rotation (22c),(¶[0004]; sectional view; guide plates 2, 3 extending perpendicular to rotor shaft 10 on the end faces of coil 1),
and wherein the teeth of the first bridge element (24a) and the teeth of the second bridge element (24b) are arranged at an angle orthogonal to the corresponding first and second planes around the at least one rotor (22),(¶[0004]; sectional view; stator poles 4, 5 formed by bending parts of guide plates 2, 3 at right angles to the plates, around the rotor),
and a thickness of one or both of the first and second bridge elements (24a, 24b) decreases from the at least one rotor (22) to the at least one coil (26).(plan view; guide plate 2 narrowing from its portion surrounding the rotor toward coil 1).
Lange is silent wherein said one or more magnetic elements (22b) being arranged radially to the at least one rotor (22) to face the teeth of each of the first bridge element and the second bridge element, because the magnet of Lange is an axially magnetized ring 12 whose flux is led to the rotor pole teeth 15, 16 by rotor pole plates 13, 14 (¶[0004]).
However, Knapen teaches wherein said one or more magnetic elements (22b) being arranged radially to the at least one rotor (22) to face the teeth of each of the first bridge element and the second bridge element(Knapen col. 4, ll. 9–16; FIG. 2; radially magnetized South and North poles 8, 9 of layer 14 facing teeth 10 of the bores of stator parts 3 and 4).
One would be motivated to arrange the magnetic poles radially facing the stator teeth, as taught by Knapen, in order to create a magnetic induction of sufficient magnitude by providing a path for the magnetic flux from rotor origin as well as from stator origin(Knapen col. 2, ll. 4–10).
Regarding claim 9/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange is silent wherein the device is comprising at least two coils (26), wherein said at least two coils, or some of them, are connected in parallel, or wherein said at least two coils, or some of them, are connected in series, because Lange discloses a single stator coil 1 (¶[0004]).
However, Tu teaches comprising at least two coils (26), wherein said at least two coils, or some of them, are connected in parallel, or wherein said at least two coils, or some of them, are connected in series(Tu col. 17, ll. 22–33; col. 19, ll. 56–59; FIG. 5; generator 30 with coils 40, 41 on armatures 38, 39 joining pole pieces 32–34 that surround magnet 3a, coils 40 and 41 connected in series).
One would be motivated to provide a second coil connected in series with the first, as taught by Tu, in order to increase the voltage applied to the rectifier and thereby improve the efficiency of the rectifier and of the converter(Tu col. 19, ll. 60–63), and to brake the rotor effectively whatever its angular position(Tu col. 18, ll. 41–48).
Regarding claim 10/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange is silent wherein the device is comprising a plurality of coils and at least one phase, because Lange discloses a single stator coil 1 (¶[0004]).
However, Tu teaches comprising a plurality of coils and at least one phase(Tu col. 17, ll. 30–33; col. 18, ll. 24–29; FIGS. 3 and 5; coils 40, 41 whose coupling factors with magnet 3a vary with a phase difference between them).
One would be motivated to provide a plurality of coils, as taught by Tu, so that one coil has a high coupling factor with the magnet when the coupling factor of the other is low, whereby the rotor is braked effectively whatever its angular position(Tu col. 18, ll. 41–48).
Regarding claim 11/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches the first recited alternative, comprising at least one coil (26) and a rotor (22) rotating relative to the coil(¶[0004]; sectional view; rotor on shaft 10 rotating in bearings 8, 9 relative to stationary stator coil 1).
Regarding claim 12/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches wherein, when rotating relative to the at least one coil, the rotor generates an alternating magnetic field within the surroundings of the rotor, thus creating an alternating magnetic field passing through the ferromagnetic bridges(¶[0004]; sectional and plan views; lines of force from rotor poles 15 to adjacent rotor poles 16 of alternating polarity taking the same path through the air gap and the stator pole tooth cage formed by poles 4, 5 of guide plates 2, 3 as the stator flux).
Lange is silent wherein the alternating magnetic field is thereby inducing electrical voltage within the at least one coil, because Lange describes only driving the rotor from the stator coil (¶¶[0003]–[0004]).
However, Tu teaches thereby inducing electrical voltage within the at least one coil(Tu col. 6, ll. 43–44, 59–61; FIG. 1; stator 5 coupling rotating magnet 3a to coil 6, coil 6 generating an alternating voltage).
One would be motivated to collect the voltage induced in the coil of the Lange–Knapen machine in order to replace cells and batteries of portable devices with a rotary electric-energy generator driven by a mechanical energy source(Tu col. 1, ll. 8–18).
Regarding claim 13/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange is silent wherein, when an electrical load is connected to the at least one coil, a current circulates within the electrical load as a consequence of the voltage produced by the at least one coil, thereby transmitting electrical power to the electrical load, because Lange describes its stator coil only as generating an alternating field when excited (¶¶[0003]–[0004]).
However, Tu teaches wherein, when an electrical load is connected to the at least one coil, a current circulates within the electrical load as a consequence of the voltage produced by the at least one coil, thereby transmitting electrical power to the electrical load(Tu col. 6, ll. 59–64; col. 7, ll. 3–6; col. 10, ll. 16–19; FIG. 1; rectifying circuit 7 and storage capacitor 8 connected to coil 6, coil 6 supplying a current that charges capacitor 8, electronic circuits energized by the voltage across capacitor 8).
One would be motivated to connect such a load to the coil in order to store the electrical energy generated and to energize the electronic circuits of the device with it(Tu col. 6, ll. 59–64; col. 7, ll. 3–6).
Regarding claim 14/13, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 13.
Lange is silent wherein the electrical load is defined by, or comprises a resistance, an inductance, a capacitor, a filter, a diode rectifier bridge, a LED, a battery, or a combination thereof, because Lange describes its stator coil only as generating an alternating field when excited (¶¶[0003]–[0004]).
However, Tu teaches the recited alternatives wherein the electrical load is defined by, or comprises a resistance, an inductance, a capacitor, a filter, a diode rectifier bridge, a LED, a battery, or a combination thereof(Tu col. 6, ll. 59–68; col. 27, ll. 4–7; FIG. 1; bridge rectifier 7 and storing and filtering capacitor 8, which may be replaced by a rechargeable cell).
One would be motivated to provide such a load in order to transform the alternating voltage generated by the coil into a rectified voltage and to filter and temporarily store the generated electrical energy(Tu col. 6, ll. 59–64).
Regarding claim 16/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches wherein, because the at least one coil is in the vicinity of the rotor,(¶¶[0002], [0004]; sectional and plan views; coil 1 located directly beside the stator pole tooth cage, guide plates 2, 3 conducting the magnetic flux between coil 1 and stator poles 4, 5).
Lange is silent wherein the at least one coil is affected by the alternating magnetic field located in the ferromagnetic bridge, because in Lange the alternating field originates from the energized stator coil (¶[0003]).
However, Tu teaches wherein the at least one coil is affected by the alternating magnetic field located in the ferromagnetic bridge(Tu col. 6, ll. 43–51, 59–61; FIG. 1; stator 5 magnetically coupling rotating magnet 3a to coil 6, coil 6 generating an alternating voltage).
One would be motivated to so couple the coil to the alternating field of the rotating magnet in order to obtain a rotary electric-energy generator driven by a mechanical energy source in place of cells and batteries(Tu col. 1, ll. 8–18).
Regarding claim 17/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches wherein the guide plates conduct the magnetic flux between the stator pole tooth cage surrounding the rotor and the coil(¶[0004]; sectional view; guide plates 2, 3 directing flux between coil 1 and stator poles 4, 5).
Lange is silent wherein the ferromagnetic bridge locally transmits the alternating magnetic field generated by the rotor to the at least one coil for inducing voltage within the at least one coil, because Lange transmits the field from the energized coil to the rotor (¶[0004]).
However, Tu teaches wherein the ferromagnetic bridge locally transmits the alternating magnetic field generated by the rotor to the at least one coil for inducing voltage within the at least one coil(Tu col. 6, ll. 43–51, 59–61; FIG. 1; pole pieces of stator 5 surrounding magnet 3a and connected to the core of coil 6).
One would be motivated to transmit the rotor field to the coil in this manner in order to obtain a rotary electric-energy generator driven by a mechanical energy source in place of cells and batteries(Tu col. 1, ll. 8–18), Tu teaching that a generator in which pole pieces surrounding the rotor are connected to the core of the coil is particularly suited to timepieces(Tu col. 2, l. 60 – col. 3, l. 7).
Regarding claim 18/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches wherein couplers in form of protrusions or teeth which extend radially couple the magnetic field of the rotor into the magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge(¶¶[0001], [0004]; plan view; stator poles 4, 5 arranged around the rotor circumference, lines of force of rotor poles 15, 16 taking the same path through the stator pole tooth cage as the flux of stator poles 4, 5),
allowing a certain free space around the concentrically located rotor(¶¶[0003]–[0004]; sectional view; air gap between the stator pole tooth cage and the rotor poles),
and are an integral part of the ferromagnetic bridges(¶[0004]; stator poles 4, 5 obtained by bending shaped parts of guide plates 2, 3).
Lange is silent wherein the field coupled into the bridge is the radial magnetic field of the rotor, because the magnet of Lange is an axially magnetized ring 12 whose flux is led to the rotor pole teeth 15, 16 by rotor pole plates 13, 14 (¶[0004]).
However, Knapen teaches the radial magnetic field of the rotor(Knapen col. 1, ll. 28–31; col. 4, ll. 9–16; FIG. 2; poles 8, 9 forming a thin layer in the radial direction, magnetized radially as shown by the arrows of FIG. 2, facing teeth 10 of stator parts 3, 4).
One would be motivated to provide the rotor with radially directed poles facing the stator teeth, as taught by Knapen, in order to create a magnetic induction of sufficient magnitude by providing a path for the magnetic flux from rotor origin as well as from stator origin(Knapen col. 2, ll. 4–10).
Regarding claim 19/18, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 18.
Lange further teaches wherein the couplers form a cylindrical cage-like structure(¶¶[0001], [0004]; sectional and plan views; stator pole tooth cage formed by poles 4, 5 around the rotor).
Regarding claim 20/18, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 18.
Lange further teaches wherein the ferromagnetic bridge is shaped to concentrate the magnetic flux from the couplers towards and through the coil(¶[0004]; sectional and plan views; guide plates 2, 3 on the end faces of coil 1 directing the flux between stator poles 4, 5 and coil 1, plate 2 narrowing from the rotor region toward coil 1).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (DE 1096482 B) in view of Knapen (US 4,908,808) and Tu (US 4,799,003), and further in view of Bourqui (EP 1 601 080 A1). Citations to Bourqui are to the paragraph numbers of the English machine translation provided with this action.
In view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 4 is interpreted for purposes of applying the prior art as requiring a central axis of the coil that is non-parallel to the axis of rotation, and the overall centroidal axis of claim 5 is interpreted as passing through the geometrical center of the central axes of the coils.
Regarding claim 4/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange is silent wherein the central axis (26a) of the at least one coil (26) is non-parallel or non-coaxial to the axis of rotation (22c) of the at least one rotor (22) so that said central axis is twisted with respect to the axis of rotation (22c), because coil 1 of Lange is wound between guide plates 2, 3 lying perpendicular to rotor shaft 10, so that its central axis is parallel to the axis of rotation (¶¶[0003]–[0004]; sectional view).
However, in the analogous art of miniature electric machines having a multipolar permanent-magnet rotor housed in a cage of interpenetrating stator teeth and a coil located outside the cage, Bourqui teaches stator plates 21a, 21b having teeth 25a, 25b angled toward a third stator plate 33 whose teeth 35 interpenetrate with them to form a cage housing rotor 1, and coil arms 26a, 26b running substantially transversely, preferably substantially perpendicular, to the axis of rotation 2, on which coils 11a, 11b are wound on coil carriers 51a, 51b through which the coil arms pass(Bourqui ¶¶[0010]–[0011], [0013], [0019]–[0020]; FIGS. 1–6), wherein the central axis (26a) of the at least one coil (26) is non-parallel or non-coaxial to the axis of rotation (22c) of the at least one rotor (22) so that said central axis is twisted with respect to the axis of rotation (22c)(Bourqui ¶¶[0011], [0019], [0025]; coil wound about coil arm 26a running essentially perpendicular to rotation axis 2).
Lange, Knapen, Tu and Bourqui are in the same field of miniature permanent-magnet electric machines in which a coil located outside the rotor is coupled to the rotor through soft-magnetic stator plates whose teeth surround the rotor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wind the coil of the Lange–Knapen–Tu generator on an arm of the bridge running perpendicular to the axis of rotation, as taught by Bourqui, in order to obtain a relatively flat structure even with a large number of turns of the coil and to make available a large volume for the coil windings that is not subject to geometric restrictions(Bourqui ¶[0025]), a known technique applied to a similar device with predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 5/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange is silent wherein the device is comprising at least two coils (26), whereby each coil (26) contains one central axis (26a), whereby an overall centroidal axis (26b) passes through the overall geometrical center, or barycenter, of all of the central axes (26a), whereby the overall centroidal axis (26b) is arranged non-concentrically and/or non-parallel with respect to the axis of rotation (22c) of the at least one rotor (22), because Lange discloses a single stator coil 1 whose central axis is parallel to the axis of rotation (¶¶[0003]–[0004]; sectional view).
However, Bourqui teaches comprising at least two coils (26), whereby each coil (26) contains one central axis (26a), whereby an overall centroidal axis (26b) passes through the overall geometrical center, or barycenter, of all of the central axes (26a), whereby the overall centroidal axis (26b) is arranged non-concentrically and/or non-parallel with respect to the axis of rotation (22c) of the at least one rotor (22)(Bourqui ¶¶[0009], [0011], [0019]–[0020], [0025]; FIGS. 5–6; coils 11a, 11b wound about coil arms 26a, 26b that are arranged parallel to each other and each run essentially perpendicular to rotation axis 2, so that an axis through the center of the coil axes is likewise perpendicular to rotation axis 2).
One would be motivated to provide two coils on parallel coil arms running perpendicular to the axis of rotation, as taught by Bourqui, in order to obtain a particularly flat and compact design with a large volume available for the coil windings(Bourqui ¶¶[0020], [0025]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (DE 1096482 B) in view of Knapen (US 4,908,808) and Tu (US 4,799,003), and further in view of Shikama (US 4,782,259).
In view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 6 is interpreted for purposes of applying the prior art as requiring that the bridge include a material comprising one of Fe, Co, Cr or Ni together with a metalloid.
Regarding claim 6/1, Lange in view of Knapen and Tu teaches the electric generator device of claim 1.
Lange further teaches that the guide plates are magnetic stator guide plates(¶[0003]; guide plates 2, 3).
Lange is silent wherein the magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge (24a, 24b) includes material selected from one of a group of materials consisting of Fe, Co, Cr or Ni and a metalloid, because Lange does not identify the material of guide plates 2, 3 (¶¶[0003]–[0004]).
However, in the analogous art of generators in which a rotating multipolar magnet induces voltage in a coil through magnetic plates carrying salient poles, Shikama teaches wherein the magnetic or ferromagnetic bridge (24a, 24b) includes material selected from one of a group of materials consisting of Fe, Co, Cr or Ni and a metalloid(Shikama col. 3, ll. 26–29, 40–50; col. 4, ll. 28–35; magnetic plates 20, 22 made of silicon steel plate and carrying salient poles 26a, 28a on their peripheries, flux of multipolar magnet 18 interlinking generating coil 30), the metalloid being preferably C, B, Si, V, M or an alloy of at least two of these materials(Shikama col. 3, ll. 26–29; silicon steel, an alloy of iron and silicon).
Lange, Knapen, Tu and Shikama are in the same field of electric machines in which the flux of a rotating permanent magnet is conducted through magnetic plates to a coil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the guide plates of the Lange–Knapen–Tu generator of silicon steel, as taught by Shikama, because Shikama identifies silicon steel plate as a magnetic material suitable for plates that carry salient poles facing a rotating multipolar magnet and conduct its flux to a generating coil(Shikama col. 3, ll. 26–29), and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 8, 15 and 21 are 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, and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is Lange (DE 1096482 B), Knapen (US 4,908,808), Tu (US 4,799,003), Bourqui (EP 1 601 080 A1) and Shikama (US 4,782,259). None of the references, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests an electric generator device having all of the limitations of claim 1 and further wherein "one end of said rotor shaft (36a) comprising a coupling element (36b) adapted to transmit an external mechanical force to the at least one rotor (22)" (claim 3); wherein the first and second bridge elements "each comprise interlocking elements for preventing rotational displacement of the first bridge element (24a) to the second bridge element (24b)" (claim 7); wherein the bridge "comprises at least one extension (24d) for attaching the electric generator device (20) to any mechanical structure" (claim 8); wherein "the electrical load further comprises devices or accessories having one or several movable parts" (claim 15); or wherein "this extension has an outer diameter of 1 to 2mm" (claim 21), in combination with the remaining limitations of the respective claims. The examiner finds no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the references of record to arrive at these arrangements. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
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
