Thanh Tri Lam
[2024] APO 52
•19 December 2024
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Thanh Tri Lam [2024] APO 52
Patent Application: 2023214228
Title:Bevelled magnetic continuous variable transmission
Patent Applicant: Thanh Tri Lam
Delegate:Greg Powell
Decision Date: 19 December 2024
Hearing Date: Written submissions due on 31 October 2024
Catchwords: PATENTS – section 97(1) – re-examination – examiner objection –clear enough and complete enough disclosure – undue burden – specification does not contain enough information to enable performance of invention across full width of the claims – no patentable subject matter identified in the specification – application refused – utility and support not considered
Representation: Applicant did not make submissions
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2023214228
Title:Bevelled magnetic continuous variable transmission
Patent Applicant: Thanh Tri Lam
Date of Decision: 19 December 2024
DECISION
The specification does not satisfy the requirements of s40(2)(a).
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2023214228 (the present application) was filed by Thanh Tri Lam (the applicant) on 7 August 2023. The present application claims priority from Australian provisional application 2023902148, filed on 4 July 2023.
An internal review following acceptance of the present application identified grounds for re-examining and a first re-examination report (the first report) was issued on 28 February 2024 raising objections in relation to clarity, clear and complete enough disclosure, support and utility. Opinion on the novelty and inventiveness of the claimed invention was reserved. The applicant responded to the first report on 25 April 2024 by way of written submissions and proposed amendments to the claims. A second re-examination report (the second report) issued on 28 May 2024 stating that the amendments were not allowable, but, nevertheless, the written submissions were discussed, and it was concluded that they did not overcome the objections in the first report. As such, the findings (and reservations) of the first report remained. The second report noted that the applicant had had “conversations with supervising examiners and the assistant general manager”, and it was the examiner’s understanding that the applicant “may consider requesting a hearing on the objections in [the second] report”.
A response to the second report was filed on 26 July 2024 with further submissions and amendments to the claims. On 23 August 2024 a third re-examination report (the third report) issued which stated that the amendments filed with this response were also not allowable, and, once again, concluded, after discussion of the written submissions, that these submissions did not overcome the objections in the first report. In the third report, the examiner stated:
“Whilst you have not yet requested to be heard, re-examination of this application has clearly reached an impasse between yourself and the examination section concerned. This is also the case for re-examination of 2023208068, which has very similar re-examination issues as this application. Consequently, the Commissioner will now refer re-examination of this application and of 2023208068 to a hearing officer to resolve the re-examination issues for both applications, which may include refusing either application or disagreeing with the re-examination objections on either application.”[1]
Consequently, the applicant was invited to file written submissions but, in spite of a further reminder, filed none. As such I will consider the material already on file.
[1] Third report page 7
Amendments
As noted above, the examiner has stated that the amendments proposed by the applicant during re-examination are not allowable. I agree. The proposed amendments attempt to delete many features from the claims such that the claims as proposed to be amended do not fall within the scope of the claims prior to amendment, contrary to the requirement of s102(2)(a). Therefore, this decision is in relation to the specification as accepted, and any reference to the specification in my decision is to the accepted specification.
The invention as described
The invention focusses on what it calls a “Bevelled Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission”[2] (bevelled M-CVT). The specification explains that a M-CVT has:
“three rotors, which are a Mechanical Power Input Rotor (MPIR), an Electrical Power Input Rotor (EPIR) and a Mechanical Power Output Rotor (MPOR), to be either coaxial or noncoaxial.”[3]
[2] Specification at [0003]
[3] See ibid
The bevelled M-CVT of the invention is an example of a non-coaxial arrangement of rotors. The specification states that, of the MPIR, the MPOR and the EPIR, there are two pole pair rotors and a pole piece rotor. While noting that the variable rotating (electro)magnetic field, created jointly by the MPIR and EPIR pair, interacts with the magnetic field of the MPOR to rotate the MPOR, the specification states that the EPIR has a number of coils such that it works either as a motor or a generator depending on the mechanical power inputs and outputs. While working as a motor, the EPIR is rotated by electrical power and the mechanical power of the EPIR combines with the input mechanical power being transmitted through the MPIR to ensure the MPOR rotates at the desired speed; that is, by controlling its rotational speed, the EPIR effectively changes the gear ratio. Similarly, when the mechanical input power is excessive, the EPIR operates as a generator converting excess mechanical energy into electricity, while keeping the MPOR rotating at the desired speed.
Arrangements of rotors for a bevelled M-CVT are shown in the figures. The relevant figures are figures 2(a), (b) and (c):
In the bevelled M-CVT, the pair of conical pole rotors 338, 340, carrying pole pairs 330, whose drive shafts 332, 334 are at angles to each other, form a cone gear. The pole pair rotors have several pole pairs, with each rotor having a different number of pole pairs. The pole piece rotor 344, being a cone drum, is coaxial with one of the pole pair rotors and might be kept idle or fixed. The pole piece rotor has several ferromagnetic pole pieces, where the number of pole pieces equals the total number of pole pairs present in the pole pair rotors. The specification also states that, instead of a cone drum 344, the pole piece rotor could be a rotatable pole piece carrier 346.
The specification states that rotors of each cone gear can be composed of a number of stacked coaxial disks 350a, 350b. Each disk is positioned with a small differential angle 351 with respect to the preceding and subsequent disks. Consequently, the north and south poles of the pole pairs can be arranged along toroidal curves on the surface of the conical rotor, although the specification states:
“there are still a lot of other ways to stack the coaxial axial disks with different choices of differential angles. The differential angle between each pair of adjacent coaxial axial disks can also be decided by using finite element method to simulate the magnetic field of the arranged pole pairs. The thickness of the coaxial axial disks, the number of pole pairs, the differential angle, the expected range of gear ratios, the expected torque capacity of the Cone Gears and the range of speeds of the Cone Drum decide how the coaxial axial disks should be stacked. All these factors are taken into account for determining accurate arrangements of the pole pairs which results to different shapes of toroidal curves or any other curves or lines where the pole pairs are laid on.”[4]
[4] Ibid at [0013]
The specification states that:
“If the Cone Drum or the Pole Piece Carrier are kept idle or fixed, the two Cone Gears rotate with a constant gear ratio (the gear ratio of the bevelled M-CVT is unchanged) and the two cone gears rotate in the same rotational directions. If the Cone Drum and the Pole Piece Carrier are excluded, the Bevelled M-CVT works like mechanical bevel gears with a fixed gear ratio and the two Cone Gears rotate in opposite rotational directions. In contrast, if the Cone Drum or the Pole Piece Carrier are included, the two Cone Gears rotate in the same rotational direction. If the input and output Drive Shafts are coaxial, the Bevelled M-CVT might be named the Magnetic Differential Gears which is similar to the Mechanical Differential Gears in term of mechanical power transmission. In this case, the shape of the Pole Piece Carrier or the Cone Drum can either a disk, a cone or a cylinder.
Rotational directions of the output Drive Shaft depends [sic] on rotational speeds and directions of the (controllable) Cone Drum or the (controllable) Pole Piece Carrier. If the Cone Drum or the Pole Piece Carrier are kept idle or fixed, there is only a portion of them, which is a sector, is required for magnetic interactions between the two Cone Gears. The sector is called the Fixed Pole Piece Sector (FPPS) fitted between the two Cone Gears with appropriate size, appropriate shape and appropriate air gaps to the Cone Gears. The FPPS contains pole pieces similar to the Cone Drum or the Pole Piece Carrier.”[5]
[5] Ibid at [0015]-[0016]
It is worthwhile noting that the level of technical detail in the specification rises no higher than what I have presented above. It supplied high-level, schematic diagrams of necessary pieces to implement the invention.
The invention as claimed
The specification ends with 8 claims. The entire claim set is set out in the Annex to this decision. Claim 1, which is the only independent claim, is as follows:
1. A Bevelled Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (Bevelled M-CVT);
·wherein:
othe Bevelled M-CVT comprises a Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (MCVT);
oat least two rotors among three rotors of the M-CVT are noncoaxial;
·and wherein:
othe M-CVT comprising:
§a Mechanical Power Input Rotor (MPIR); wherein the MPIR receives mechanical power inputs;
§a Mechanical Power Output Rotor (MPOR); wherein the MPOR delivers mechanical power outputs;
§an Electrical Power Input Rotor (EPIR) comprising a motor-generator; wherein:
·the motor-generator is controllably operated by a source of variable electric power;
·the motor-generator is able to work relying on mechanical power inputs and mechanical power outputs for its dual functions of driving a device and generating electricity; wherein:
othe motor-generator works as an electric motor together with the MPIR to make the MPOR delivering controllable mechanical power outputs;
othe motor-generator works as a generator to generate electricity from excessed mechanical power inputs while maintaining the MPOR delivering controllable mechanical power outputs;
§wherein:
·among the MPIR, the MPOR and the EPIR, there are the followings rotors: a (first) Pole Pair Rotor, a (second) Pole Pair Rotor and a Pole Piece Rotor;
·wherein the Pole Pair Rotors:
oeach Pole Pair Rotor has a number of pole pairs;
othe number of pole pairs of the (first) Pole Pair Rotor and the number of pole pairs of the (second) Pole Pair Rotor should be different;
othe pole pairs are putted together in a number of Strips of Pole Pairs; wherein each Strip is either continuous or noncontinuous;
·and wherein the Pole Piece Rotor:
othe Pole Piece Rotor has a number of ferromagnetic pole pieces;
othe ferromagnetic pole pieces are putted together in a number of Strips of Pole Pieces; wherein each Strip is either continuous or noncontinuous;
othe number of ferromagnetic pole pieces equals to total pole pairs of both the (first) Pole Pair Rotor and the (second) Pole Pair Rotor;
ototal Strips of Pole Pairs of the two Pole Pair Rotors equals to the number of Strips of Pole Pieces;
§and wherein:
·the MPOR has a MPOR-Magnetic Field created by its pole pairs or pole pieces;
·a variable rotating (electro)magnetic field created jointly by the MPIR and the EPIR interacts with the MPOR-Magnetic Field making the MPOR rotated;
othe M-CVT being:
§a system of controllable magnetic gear mechanism;
§capable to accept mechanical inputs of bidirectional rotations for outputs of unidirectional rotations;
§controllable for desired variable outputs of mechanical power with controllable gear ratios as required;
§supplied with a source of electrical power for changing gear ratios and for desired mechanical output controls;
othe M-CVT comprising a Control System used to control the M-CVT; wherein the EPIR of the M-CVT is controlled by the Control System to work as either an electric motor or a generator depending on mechanical power inputs of the MPIR and mechanical power outputs of the MPOR, including rotational directions; wherein:
§the Control System controls electric currents supplied by a source to rotate the EPIR for changing gear ratios in order to maintain required mechanical power outputs of the M-CVT;
§the Control System controls electric currents generated by the EPIR while maintaining required mechanical power outputs of the M-CVT;
·and wherein:
othe Bevelled M-CVT has two Cone Gears; wherein:
§the (first) Pole Pair Rotor of the M-CVT is a Cone Gear of the Bevelled M-CVT;
§the (second) Pole Pair Rotor of the M-CVT is the other Cone Gear of the Bevelled M-CVT;
othe Bevelled M-CVT has a Cone Drum; wherein the Pole Piece Rotor of the M-CVT is the Cone Drum of the Bevelled M-CVT.
Examination
First report
As already noted earlier in this decision, in the first report of 28 February 2024, the examiner raised objections in relation to clarity, clear and complete enough disclosure, support and utility. With respect to a clear and complete enough disclosure, the examiner stated that no working principle had been disclosed for a M-CVT having non-coaxial rotors. Noting that, typically, all the three rotors of a M-CVT are arranged in a coaxial fashion, the examiner stated that the specification did not explain how a non-coaxial M-CVT can achieve the same operation of a coaxial M-CVT. The examiner also noted that, while claim 1 defined that any two of the three rotors are pole pair rotors and the remaining one was a pole piece rotor, the specification did not provide enough information to enable each of the embodiments that fall with the broad claim. For example, the specification did not explain how the EPIR can act as a motor/generator if the EPIR is the pole piece rotor and has only pole pieces. The examiner also stated that the relative physical positions of the three rotors were not defined, and claim 1 encompassed multiple possibilities that were not fully described. The examiner further stated that the specification did not disclose how the M-CVT took “inputs of bidirectional rotations for outputs of unidirectional rotations”, as required by claim 1.
The examiner noted that the specification did not provide enabling disclosure for the features of the EPIR. In particular, it did not disclose how the EPIR could be a motor-generator and controlled to work as either an electric motor or a generator. The examiner stated that, conventionally, a motor or generator required two magnetically linked components: a stator and a rotor to perform its operation, but the description indicated that the EPIR simply had coils and no stator was described.
As to claim 2, the examiner noted that it defined the pole piece rotor being excluded and the EPIR being physically combined with the MPOR to form a single physical rotor EPIR-MPOR. The examiner pointed out that a M-CVT having two non-coaxial pole pair rotors (with the pole piece rotor missing) was inconsistent with claim 1. The examiner also stated that, due to the absence of the pole piece rotor, the embodiment of claim 2 would result in a configuration similar to a magnetic spur gear which, technically, could not achieve the constant velocity feature and the specification did not disclose how the pole piece rotor could be replaced in such a way so as to preserve the constant velocity feature.
The examiner commented on claims 3 and 4 stating that, by defining two MPIRs and an EPIR-MPOR, or a MPIR and two EPIR-MPORs, the M-CVT would then have 4 rotors, contrary to claim 1. The examiner stated that the specification did not disclose (i) how the four rotors are spatially arranged, (ii) how the pole piece rotor magnetically interacts with the remaining three rotors, or (iii) how, for the option of two EPIR-MPORs, a M-CVT can be achieved with two separate motor-generators (i.e. the two EPIR-MPORs).
The examiner also noted that claims 2–4, defining different numbers, and types, of rotors, were inconsistent with claim 1, which required the number of pole pieces in the pole piece rotor to equal the number of pole pairs of the first and second pole pair rotors. The examiner further stated that the specification did not disclose how the “differential angle” is determined based on “torque versus time of the Cone Gear”, as required by claim 7.
The examiner also concluded that the claims lacked support for the same reasons.
The examiner also stated that the subject matter of the claims was not useful because a bevelled M-CVT could not achieve the constant velocity feature as the working principle of a coaxial M-CVT would be inoperable for a non-coaxial configuration. The examiner noted that, in a standard co-axial M-CVT, the pole piece rotor would be placed in between the pole pair rotors to function as a modulator which modulates the magnetic field in the 3600 space between the inner and the outer rotors to achieve continuously variable transmission ratio. However, with a bevelled M-CVT, the non-coaxial arrangement did not permit the pole pair rotors to magnetically interact in a 3600 angular space, as the pole piece rotor only interacts (and, therefore, provides a modulation function) in a very narrow region.
Response to first report
The applicant responded (applicant’s first response) stating that the description showed the physical positions of the rotors in the figures. The applicant also stated that it was “fundamental knowledge” that pole pieces had to be fitted between two arrays of pole pairs to be able to magnify the magnetic fluxes, and a particular shape was not necessary. As such straight or curved or circular arrays were workable as long as there were magnetic interactions. The applicant further stated that the relative physical position of the three rotors was defined and only one possibility existed. With regards to the examiner’s statements about coaxial and non-coaxial M-CVTs not achieving the same function, applicant stated that there was nothing in the specification that described only a coaxial M-CVT.
When discussing the examiner’s query as to how the EPIR could be a motor-generator and controlled to work as either an electric motor or a generator, when it has only pole pieces, the applicant noted that the specification stated:
“The EPIR also has a number or coils which make the EPIR working either as an electric motor or a generator. When working as a motor, the EPIR uses a source of electrical power which is converted to mechanical power for rotating the EPIR. … The EPIR is controllable and has a role of changing gear ratios of the M-CVT. Whenever rotational speeds of the MPOR need to be increased, the EPIR works as an electric motor using extra electric power supplied.”[6]
[6] Ibid at [0003]
The applicant submitted that this paragraph showed that the EPIR is rotated by a source of mechanical power using electrical power to make it rotate. The source of mechanical power was a conventional motor/generator. The applicant submitted that the mechanical power used to rotate the EPIR could be varied by controlling the electrical power supplied to the motor/generator thereby varying the rotational speed. Therefore, in the applicant’s submission, because the rotational speed was controlled, the EPIR was being controlled. Therefore, it followed that the EPIR was controllable. Moreover, as the pole pieces of the EPIR were used for torque transmissions between the rotors, the applicant stated that variation of the torque transmitted varied the mechanical power output to the MPOR, thereby achieving variable transmission. The applicant submitted that, as a conventional motor/generator only had one shaft, it followed that the shaft was connected to the EPIR (by any one of many well-known ways) to rotate it.
Second report
In their second report, after noting that the amendments filed by the applicant were not allowable, the examiner addressed the applicant’s arguments. Observing the applicant’s statement that the relative physical position of the three rotors was defined clearly, the examiner stated that relative positions for a bevelled M-CVT were clear in the description, but they were not clearly defined in the claim. The examiner also agreed with the applicant that straight, curved or circular pole piece arrays were workable as long as there were magnetic interactions, but maintained their position that the bevelled M-CVT shown in the figures, having more or less a single line of interaction, did not have sufficient interaction, and it would take more than reasonable trial and error to have the pole piece rotor of the bevelled M-CVT act as a modulator to the full extent claimed.
Regarding the applicant’s statement that there was nothing in the specification that described only a coaxial M-CVT, the examiner agreed but stated that first part of the claim 1 described a coaxial M-CVT and neither claim 1 nor the specification described the relative positions of the rotors of the coaxial M-CVT.
Regarding the applicant’s statements with respect to the EPIR being a motor/generator, the examiner claimed that the applicant had been inconsistent in their response. Firstly, the examiner noted that the applicant had said that a motor/generator rotates the physical rotor of the EPIR. Then, the examiner also noted that paragraph [0003] referred to by the applicant (cited above) stated that the EPIR had “a number of coils” which allowed the EPIR to work as either a motor or a generator. The examiner stated that these were two different positions: one being the EPIR being rotated and the other being the EPIR rotating itself. The examiner noted that a stator and a rotor were required for the EPIR to perform its operation, and the description indicated that the EPIR simply had coils and no stator was described. The examiner maintained their view that the specification did not explain how the EPIR can act as a motor/generator if the EPIR is the pole piece rotor and has only pole pieces.
The examiner also maintained their objection that the subject matter of the claims was not useful.
Response to second report
The applicant responded (applicant’s second response) pointing out words in paragraph [0003] and stated that the specification clearly set out that the EPIR was capable of working as a motor/generator.
The applicant then continued by stating that:
“… there are a lot of wrong points raised by examiners in reports issued by [examination sections], including this report … I agree that my applications were not presented in the best way, but I am able to find out many wrong points raised … in the reports issued for my applications. No matter how the outcomes of my applications are, at this stage, instead of spending my time to explain everything for nothing, I simply focus to my business and to apply much better applications, off cause, to other countries. However, I feel that it is quite easy for me to have resources and capacities to solve these issues, either sooner or later.”[7]
[7] Applicant’s second response at page 1, item 4)
The applicant then asked whether the examiner would want to withdraw their usefulness objection as “I do not want to spend more time to prove it for something called ‘overcoming’”[8].
[8] Ibid at page 1, item 5)
Third report
In the third report, after noting that the amendments filed by the applicant were not allowable, the examiner maintained the view that the claims were unclear, lacked support and defined an invention that was not described in a clear enough and complete enough manner.
The examiner’s responses to the applicant’s arguments were as follows:
“The Applicant's submission received on 26 July 2024 has been considered but not found persuasive. Specifically, the applicant, in items 1 to 3 of their response, states:
1) [0003] ‘The EPIR also has a number or coils which make the EPIR working either as an electric motor or a generator’ à just forget the coils as it is an additional detail and I do not need it for may [sic] claim(s).
2) [0003] ‘the EPIR working either as an electric motor or a generator’à this clearly defines a required function of the EPIR, that it is able/capable to work as an electric motor.
3) [0003] ‘the EPIR works as an electric motor’ à this clearly exposes that the EPIR is capable to work as electric motor.
I respectfully disagree. As stated in the re-examination report dated 28 February 2024, conventionally the motor/generator requires two magnetically linked components: a stator and a rotor to perform its operation. In case the EPIR is understood to be a rotor, it would require a stator (similar to an electrical machine) to work as a ‘motor-generator’. However, the specification does not disclose such a ‘stator’ (associated with the EPIR). Therefore, it would be unknown to a person skilled in the art to operate the EPIR as a ‘motor-generator’ to achieve the claimed M-CVT. Therefore, I consider that your specification does not disclose the claimed M-CVT in a clear enough and complete enough manner. Therefore, the disclosure being insufficient, it will be an undue burden for the person skilled in the art to perform the claimed invention of ‘Bevelled M-CVT’.
In relation to items 4 and 5 of your response, simply disagreeing to the objections raised in the examination reports without providing convincing arguments/amendments does not necessarily overcome the objections.”[9]
[9] Third report pages 1–2
s40(2)(a) – Clear enough and complete enough disclosure
The requirement for clear enough and complete enough disclosure was introduced into the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as part of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (RTB) reforms. Specifically, s40(2)(a) reads as follows:
“(2) A complete specification must:
(a)disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art;…”
As indicated in Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd[10] the requirements of s40(2)(a) equate to enablement of the invention; I note that this was undisturbed in the appeal to Encompass[11]. As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum to the RTB legislation at item 8, enablement amounts to a requirement that “…sufficient information must be provided to enable the whole width of the claimed invention to be performed by the skilled person without undue burden, or the need for further invention”.
[10] [2018] FCA 421 (Encompass) at [167]
[11] Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161
The nature of s40(2)(a) was considered in some detail by a Dr Barker in CSR Building Products Limited v United States Gypsum Company[12], including an extensive consideration of a number of UK and EPO decisions relevant to an understanding of this part of the Act. After this consideration Dr Barker provided a test for s40(2)(a):
“In order to decide whether a specification provides a disclosure as required by section 40(2), it is necessary to:
(i)construe the claims to determine the scope of invention as claimed,
(ii)construe the description to determine what it discloses to the person skilled in the art, and
(iii)decide whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims.”[13]
[12] [2015] APO 72 (CSR)
[13] CSR at [95]
In Evolva SA[14], Dr McCaffery provided some further analysis and consideration of UK and EPO decisions relevant to the question of s40(2)(a). After having done so, Dr McCaffery expanded on the third point from the test in CSR as follows:
“Does the specification provide an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims, and in particular:
(i)Is it plausible that the invention can be worked across the full scope of the claim?
(ii)Can the invention be performed across the full scope of the claim without undue burden?”[15]
[14] [2017] APO 57; 133 IPR 147 (Evolva)
[15] Evolva at [45]
I note that the above approach was approved by Justice Burley in Cytec Industries Inc. v Nalco Company[16]. It was also adopted by Justice Burley in TCT Group Pty Ltd v Polaris IP Pty Ltd[17], in the context of determining priority dates, albeit without reference to the sub-test from Evolva.
[16] [2021] FCA 970; 162 IPR 202 at [143] to [146]
[17] [2022] FCA 1493; 170 IPR 313 at [154]
Consideration
The examiner’s position is correct. There is not enough information provided by the specification to allow the person skilled in the art (PSA) to perform the invention across the full scope of the claims without undue burden.
Operation of a non-coaxial M-CVT
Rotors
The invention clearly requires that the EPIR can be controllably rotated, and the passage from the specification I have given at [10] above states that:
“Rotational directions of the output Drive Shaft depends [sic] on rotational speeds and directions of the (controllable) Cone Drum or the (controllable) Pole Piece Carrier.” (my emphasis)
The specification also clearly states that the EPIR:
“has a number or coils which make the EPIR working either as an electric motor or a generator. When working as a motor, the EPIR uses a source of electrical power which is converted to mechanical power for rotating the EPIR.”[18]
[18] Specification at [0003]
The result of these statements is that the EPIR must be the pole piece carrier (either item 344 or 346 of the figures shown in [7] above), and the EPIR is the rotor of the motor/generator.
However, as noted by the examiner, an electric motor or generator requires a stator, and there is no disclosure of a stator in the specification. While it may well be the case that a PSA would proceed on the basis that a stator would inherently be present, given the form of EPIR shown in the figures, there is no guidance as to where the stator is to be positioned with respect to the coil-carrying EPIR so as to achieve the motor/generator effect, and one is not apparent to me. Taking the cone drum 344 of figure 2(a) at [7] above, a stator positioned around the outside of the cone would inhibit any magnetic interaction with the opposite rotor 340, while a stator positioned inside the cone drum 344, would inhibit any magnetic interaction with the inner rotor 338.
The same type of observation can be made for the arrangement of figure 2(c) shown in [7] above. A stator position either side of the pole piece carrier 346 would inhibit any magnetic interactions of at least one of the rotors with the pole piece rotor.
The applicant stated during re-examination that:
“It is said in my description that the motor-generator rotates (the physical rotor) of the EPIR. It means that the shaft is connected to the EPIR in order to be able to rotate the physical rotor of the EPIR.”[19]
[19] Applicant’s first response at page 6
However, this arrangement is not “said” in the description. Even if it were, it would, as noted by the examiner, be inconsistent with the requirement cited at [39] above that the EPIR has coils so that it works as a motor or generator. While (as noted at [31] above) the applicant stated in their response to the second report:
“[j]ust forget the coils as it is an additional detail and I do not need it for may [sic] claim(s)”[20],
it is the specification which controls disclosure, not what the applicant believes to be the invention.
[20] Applicant’s second response at page 1, item 1)
Turning to the claims, they do not define, let alone provide any limitations on, a stator. They also do not limit the EPIR to what is described. Indeed, the claims do not limit the EPIR to being the pole piece rotor. Claim 1 merely defines that one of the MPIR, MPOR and EPIR is the first pole pair rotor, one of the MPIR, MPOR and EPIR is the second pole pair rotor, and one of the MPIR, MPOR and EPIR is the pole piece rotor.
Given that (i) the claims have a very large number of rotor combinations within their scope, and (ii) the specification does not even clearly describe the operation of the two embodiments that are disclosed, it cannot be said that the specification provides an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims. To my mind, an undue burden has been placed on the PSA to develop a working M-CVT having the rotors that are defined.
Operation as a M-CVT
During re-examination the applicant stated that:
“ferromagnetic pole pieces are used as flux multipliers. So, the pole pieces must be fitted between two arrays of pole pairs in order to be able to magnify fluxes of both arrays of pole pairs”[21] (my emphasis)
[21] Applicant’s first response at page 1
I agree that pole pieces need to be present for the M-CVT to operate as a CVT. However, as noted by the applicant, such pole pieces and pole pairs are to be in an array. The relevant definition of “array” is:
“a series of elements or sets of elements arranged in a meaningful pattern, as in the rows and columns forming a matrix”[22].
[22] Macquarie dictionary ninth edition 2023
It is clear from the figures (as noted by the examiner) that there is effectively a single line of magnetic interaction between the MPIR, EPIR and MPOR. I do not see how the single line of interaction shown in the figures could be said to be in a “pattern”. Even if I take the position that it is possible to have a one-dimensional array, it cannot be said that the arrangement of pole pieces shown in figure 2 (at [7] above) is this type of array. Moreover, it cannot be said that the array of pole pieces is “between” the two arrays of pole pairs. I also do not see how a CVT function is achieved. In particular it does not seem plausible that a single line of interaction creates an effective modulation of the magnetic field to allow gear ratio change. Stronger magnets would not assist as it would remain a single line of interaction (albeit with a stronger magnetic field). The arrangement shown in the figures is akin to a first order gear arrangement which is an arrangement which cannot provide variable transmission. I cannot see how the PSA could perform the invention across the claim scope without undue burden.
Further discussions on dependent claims 2–4
Claims 2–4 define different arrangements of rotors. Nevertheless, each claim defines that its respective arrangement has at least one combined EPIR-MPOR. Each claim defines that the EPIR-MPOR is a combination of an EPIR and a MPOR, and that each EPIR-MPOR “has all features of the EPIR and the MPOR”. Ignoring for the moment a potential clarity issue around the fact that such arrangements seem fundamentally inconsistent with the requirement of claim 1 of separate MPIR, MPOR and EPIR, to which they are appended, there is no disclosure of how a single rotor can simultaneously be composed of a rotor of pole pieces which can be controllably rotated and a rotor composed of pole pairs which rotates at a speed that is dependent on the rotation rate of the pole pieces, which, according to the specification, is a fundamental requirement for the CVT function to be achieved. Such an arrangement seems impossible, and the description provides no guidance beyond stating that it is done.
Moreover, to my mind it is not open to a reader of the claims to conclude that there are in fact separate MPIRs, MPORs and EPIRs. These claims specify a combined EPIR-MPOR. So, I do not construe this rotor to being something like two coaxial rotors; one being the pole piece rotor and one being a pole pair rotor. That being the case, given the lack of a rotating pole piece rotor, and given the fact that during re-examination the applicant stated:
“the EPIR is rotated by a conventional and variable and controllable source of power which is converted to a variable mechanical power of the EPIR then combined with the input mechanical power being transmitted through the MPIR to form the variable output mechanical power of the MPOR, making the MPOR rotating at desired (variable) rotational speeds, meaning variable transmission is achieved”[23] (my emphasis),
it is not plausible that a CVT function can be achieved in the M-CVT. Consequently, the PSA is left with an undue burden in seeking to perform the invention across the full scope of these claims.
[23] Applicant’s first response at page 4
Conclusion
It follows that the specification lacks a clear enough and complete enough disclosure.
Conclusion
The claimed invention does not satisfy the requirements of s40(2)(a).
Given:
(a)the claims have a very large number of rotor combinations within their scope, and the specification does not even clearly describe the operation of the two embodiments that are disclosed;
(b)it does not seem plausible that a single line of interaction as described for the bevelled M-CVT in the specification creates an effective modulation of the magnetic field to allow gear ratio change; and
(c)the lack of a rotating pole piece rotor in arrangements defined in dependent claims cannot create a CVT function of the M-CVT,
the claimed invention lacks a clear enough and complete enough disclosure.
At this point the question which arises is whether there is any utility in continuing re-examination. The lack of any meaningful technical detail in the specification means that I cannot identify any material that could be promoted into the claims to address these problems. I also note that the applicant did not access any of the letters requesting submissions prior to the due date, and, at the date of writing this decision, had not accessed them. Such lack of action appears to indicate that the applicant has lost interest in prosecuting this application. Furthermore, as noted at [28] above, the applicant explicitly stated that they would:
“focus to [their] business and to apply much better applications … to other countries”[24].
[24] Applicant’s second response at page 1
Moreover, as noted at [29] above, the applicant also stated, with respect to the examiner’s utility objection that they:
“do not want to spend more time to prove it”[25].
[25] See ibid
This lack of interest, and the fact that I cannot see any technical features that could address the issues I have found, suggest that there is no benefit in continuing re-examination. Accordingly, I will refuse the application.
Incidental – utility and support
Given this finding, there is no need for me to address the examiner’s objection that the claimed invention is not useful. That being said, it could reasonably be said that the arrangements described in the specification do not credibly allow a CVT function for the described bevelled M-CVT for the reasons I have set when discussing s40(2)(a).
In the same way, there is no need for me to address the examiner’s objection that the claimed invention is not supported, as required by s40(3). Nevertheless, noting that a failure under s40(2)(a) to enable the invention must mean that the claims extend to subject-matter which still not be at the disposal of the PSA, the examiner’s support observation is prima facie correct.
Greg Powell
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
Annex
1. A Bevelled Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (Bevelled M-CVT);
·wherein:
othe Bevelled M-CVT comprises a Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (MCVT);
oat least two rotors among three rotors of the M-CVT are noncoaxial;
·and wherein:
othe M-CVT comprising:
§a Mechanical Power Input Rotor (MPIR); wherein the MPIR receives mechanical power inputs;
§a Mechanical Power Output Rotor (MPOR); wherein the MPOR delivers mechanical power outputs;
§an Electrical Power Input Rotor (EPIR) comprising a motor-generator; wherein:
·the motor-generator is controllably operated by a source of variable electric power;
·the motor-generator is able to work relying on mechanical power inputs and mechanical power outputs for its dual functions of driving a device and generating electricity; wherein:
othe motor-generator works as an electric motor together with the MPIR to make the MPOR delivering controllable mechanical power outputs;
othe motor-generator works as a generator to generate electricity from excessed mechanical power inputs while maintaining the MPOR delivering controllable mechanical power outputs;
§wherein:
·among the MPIR, the MPOR and the EPIR, there are the followings rotors: a (first) Pole Pair Rotor, a (second) Pole Pair Rotor and a Pole Piece Rotor;
·wherein the Pole Pair Rotors:
oeach Pole Pair Rotor has a number of pole pairs;
othe number of pole pairs of the (first) Pole Pair Rotor and the number of pole pairs of the (second) Pole Pair Rotor should be different;
othe pole pairs are putted together in a number of Strips of Pole Pairs; wherein each Strip is either continuous or noncontinuous;
·and wherein the Pole Piece Rotor:
othe Pole Piece Rotor has a number of ferromagnetic pole pieces;
othe ferromagnetic pole pieces are putted together in a number of Strips of Pole Pieces; wherein each Strip is either continuous or noncontinuous;
othe number of ferromagnetic pole pieces equals to total pole pairs of both the (first) Pole Pair Rotor and the (second) Pole Pair Rotor;
ototal Strips of Pole Pairs of the two Pole Pair Rotors equals to the number of Strips of Pole Pieces;
§and wherein:
·the MPOR has a MPOR-Magnetic Field created by its pole pairs or pole pieces;
·a variable rotating (electro)magnetic field created jointly by the MPIR and the EPIR interacts with the MPOR-Magnetic Field making the MPOR rotated;
othe M-CVT being:
§a system of controllable magnetic gear mechanism;
§capable to accept mechanical inputs of bidirectional rotations for outputs of unidirectional rotations;
§controllable for desired variable outputs of mechanical power with controllable gear ratios as required;
§supplied with a source of electrical power for changing gear ratios and for desired mechanical output controls;
othe M-CVT comprising a Control System used to control the M-CVT; wherein the EPIR of the M-CVT is controlled by the Control System to work as either an electric motor or a generator depending on mechanical power inputs of the MPIR and mechanical power outputs of the MPOR, including rotational directions; wherein:
§the Control System controls electric currents supplied by a source to rotate the EPIR for changing gear ratios in order to maintain required mechanical power outputs of the M-CVT;
§the Control System controls electric currents generated by the EPIR while maintaining required mechanical power outputs of the M-CVT;
·and wherein:
othe Bevelled M-CVT has two Cone Gears; wherein:
§the (first) Pole Pair Rotor of the M-CVT is a Cone Gear of the Bevelled M-CVT;
§the (second) Pole Pair Rotor of the M-CVT is the other Cone Gear of the Bevelled M-CVT;
othe Bevelled M-CVT has a Cone Drum; wherein the Pole Piece Rotor of the M-CVT is the Cone Drum of the Bevelled M-CVT.
2. The Bevelled M-CVT according to Claim 1; wherein its Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (M-CVT) is further simplified to have only two physical rotors;
wherein:·the Pole Piece Rotor is excluded while the (first) Pole Pair Rotor and the (second) Pole Pair Rotor are remained to be included; wherein:
oa Pole Pair Rotor among the (first) Pole Pair Rotor and the (second) Pole Pair Rotor is a MPIR; wherein the MPIR receives mechanical power inputs;
othe other Pole Pair Rotor is an EPIR-MPOR; wherein:
§the EPIR-MPOR is combined from an EPIR and a MPOR; wherein:
·the EPIR-MPOR has all features of the EPIR and the MPOR;
·the EPIR-MPOR outputs mechanical power in conjunctions with its controllable rotations assisted by the MPIR and by the motor-generator comprised in the EPIR;
·the motor-generator of the EPIR-MPOR converts excessed mechanical power inputs to electricity while maintaining mechanical power outputs of the EPIR-MPOR.
3. The Bevelled M-CVT according to any one of claims from 1 to 2; wherein its Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (M-CVT) is further enhanced to have two MPIRs and an EPIR-MPOR; wherein:
·the M-CVT comprises a pair of MPIRs and an EPIR-MPOR; wherein:
oeach MPIR receives mechanical power inputs separately;
othe EPIR-MPOR is combined from an EPIR and a MPOR; wherein:
§the EPIR-MPOR has all features of the EPIR and the MPOR;
§the EPIR-MPOR outputs mechanical power in conjunctions with its controllable rotations assisted by the MPIR and by the motor-generator comprised in the EPIR;
§the motor-generator of the EPIR-MPOR converts excessed mechanical power inputs to electricity while maintaining mechanical power outputs of the EPIR-MPOR;
oand wherein the M-CVT is used to combine two sources of mechanical power inputs via the pair of MPIRs to create controllable mechanical power outputs via the EPIR-MPOR.
4. The Bevelled M-CVT according to any one of claims from 1 to 3; wherein its Magnetic Continuous Variable Transmission (M-CVT) is further enhanced to have a MPIR and two EPIR-MPORs; wherein:
·the M-CVT comprises a MPIR and a pair of EPIR-MPORs; wherein:
othe MPIR receives mechanical power inputs;
oeach EPIR-MPOR is combined from an EPIR and a MPOR; wherein:
§the EPIR-MPOR has all features of the EPIR and the MPOR;
§the EPIR-MPOR outputs mechanical power in conjunctions with its controllable rotations assisted by the MPIR and by the motor-generator comprised in the EPIR;
§the motor-generator of the EPIR-MPOR converts excessed mechanical power inputs to electricity while maintaining mechanical power outputs of the EPIRMPOR;
othe M-CVT is used to distribute mechanical power from a source of inputs via the MPIR to obtain two controllable sources of mechanical power outputs separately via the pair of EPIR-MPORs using the two separate motor-generators comprised in the pair of EPIR-MPORs.
5. The Bevelled M-CVT according to any one of claims from 1 to 4;
·wherein its M-CVT further specifying:
othe Strips of Pole Pieces and the Strips of Pole Pairs are arranged for smoother rotations; wherein there is no case happen that the following Strips being aligned parallelly together:
§a Strip of Pole Pairs of the (first) Pole Pair Rotor;
§a Strip of Pole Pairs of the (second) Pole Pair Rotor;
§a Strip of Pole Pieces of the Pole Piece Rotor if the Pole Piece Rotor is comprised in the M-CVT.
6. The Bevelled M-CVT according to any one of claims from 1 to 5 further comprising an arrangement of pole pairs along slants of each Cone Gear; wherein:
·the number of pole pairs of each Cone Gear are arranged axially; wherein:
othe number of pole pairs at the top and at the bottom of the Cone Gear are the same;
oeach pole pair is attached on the surface of the Cone Gear and laid along a slant of the cone curve surface of the Cone Gear;
oeach pole pair is a continuous or noncontinuous strip, stretching from the top to the bottom and covers a sector of the Cone Gear.
7. The Bevelled M-CVT according to any one of claims from 1 to 5 further comprising another arrangement of pole pairs along toroidal curves of each Cone Gear;
wherein:·the number of pole pairs of each Cone Gear are arranged along a number of toroidal curves laid on the curve surface of the Cone Gear; wherein:
oeach pole pairs are composed from a number of coaxial axial disks stacking together; wherein:
§each pair of two adjacent coaxial axial disks are positioned with a small and appropriate differential angle between the pair of disks;
§a purpose of stacking the coaxial axial disks in differential angles is to further distribute magnetic forces circularly for smoother transmissions; wherein the differential angle between each pair of adjacent coaxial axial disks is determined based on torque versus time of the Cone Gear in order to make the torque versus time to be more regulated;
othe north pole as well as the south pole of each pole pairs are arranged along a pair of separate adjacent toroidal curves;
othe number of toroidal curves equals to total north poles and south poles of the number of pole pairs.
8. The Bevelled M-CVT according to any one of claims from 1 to 7 further comprising a Pole Piece Carrier in lieu of the Cone Drum; wherein:
·the Pole Piece Carrier is a rotatable circular disk; wherein:
othe Pole Piece Carrier has a number of pole pieces arranged axially;
othe axis of the Pole Piece Carrier and that of the two Cone Gears of the Bevelled M-CVT intersect together at the same point;
othe number of pole pieces of the Pole Piece Carrier equals to total pole pairs of the two Cone Gears;
oarrangements of the pole pieces of the Pole Piece Carrier are similar to that of the Cone Drum; wherein the curve surface of the Cone Drum is stretched over the Pole Piece Carrier axially;
·the Pole Piece Carrier functions exactly the same with the Cone Drum.
0
6
0