DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towne (US 2961555) in view of Adaniya (US 2011/0140551) and Mosciatti et al. (US 6201321).
In re claim 1, Towne, in figures 1-9, discloses a stator assembly comprising: a stator including a stator core (14) having a cylindrical shape and a through hole through which two ends communicate with an outside and a wound coil having parts (23) protruding to the outside further than the two ends of the stator core in an axial direction of the stator core and the remaining part positioned in the stator core; and heat dissipation caps (36) which are provided on two end portions of the stator core such that the protruding parts of the wound coil are accommodated in contact with an outer surface of the stator core (in the same way as shown by the applicant); wherein each of the heat dissipation caps includes a heat radiation exterior member (36) that includes an accommodation portion having an open front end to accommodate one protruding end portion of the wound coil in a circumferential direction (as seen in the figures), and is formed such that a second through hole corresponding to the first through hole of the stator core on the inside (two through holes are arranged on the inside and periphery as in the same way as explained in the arguments made by the applicant) and the front end surface corresponding to the one protruding end portion of the wound coil in the circumferential direction and extending from the second through hole to an outer periphery cover an end surface of the stator core, and a heat transfer filling material (16) that fills a space between the heat radiation exterior member and the accommodated wound coil. Towne does not show that the front end surface completely covers an end surface of the stator core or a single outer surface that is in direct contact with a housing. Adaniya however teaches a similar device with a cap (11) with a front end surface that completely covers an end of the core (as seen in the figures). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the front end surface of Towne completely cover an end surface of the core in order to provide more protection for the core. Mosciatti teaches in figures 1-2 that it is known in the art to have a single outer surface of each of the heat dissipation caps (34) and a single outer surface of the stator core (37) be in direct contact with a housing (26). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the teaching by Mosciatti of the caps and the core being in direct contact with a housing to the device of Townne/Adaniya to allow for improved heat dissipation.
In re claim 2, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e wound coil, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. winding or coupling and connecting. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 7, Towne teaches the claimed device except for the specifics of the claimed material properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the claimed material property values, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, at the top of page 4 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 11, Towne, in figures 1-9, discloses a heat dissipation cap for a stator, which is coupled to completely cover one end portion of a stator core (the end portion that is covered) to radiate heat of a wound coil wound around the stator core of a motor, the heat dissipation cap comprising: a heat radiation exterior member (36) that includes a first accommodation portion having an open front end to accommodate one end portion of the wound coil in a circumferential direction of a front end surface (as seen in the figures), and the front end surface is formed to a size that can cover at least an end surface (the surface of the stator core that is covered by the front end surface is the end surface) of the stator core; and a heat dissipation filling (16) composition provided in the first accommodation portion to fill a space in a second accommodation portion between the heat radiation exterior member. Towne does not show that the front end surface completely covers an end surface of the stator core, or a single outer surface that is in direct contact with a housing. Adaniya however teaches a similar device with a cap (11) with a front end surface that completely covers an end of the core (as seen in the figures). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the front end surface of Towne completely cover an end surface of the core in order to provide more protection for the core. Mosciatti, in figures 1-2, teaches that it is known in the art to have a single outer surface of each of the heat dissipation caps (34) and a single outer surface of the stator core (37) be in direct contact with a housing (26). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the teaching by Mosciatti of the caps and the core being in direct contact with a housing to the device of Townne/Adaniya to allow for improved heat dissipation.
In re claim 12, Towne, in figures 1-9, discloses that the second curable base resin is in an uncured or partially cured state (this is discussed in lines 55-65 of column 3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towne (US 2961555) in view of Adaniya (US 2011/0140551), Mosciatti et al. (US 6201321), and Nakazumi et al. (US 2013/0106212).
In re claim 13, Towne teaches the stator assembly but does not teach the claimed details of the housing including a cooling channel. Nakazumi however, in figures 1-4, discloses a similar device having a rotor (2) accommodated in a through hole inside a stator core of the stator assembly; and a housing (4) which accommodates a stator assembly to be in contact with an outer surface of the stator core of the stator assembly and includes a cooling channel (10) in a region corresponding to the outer surface of the stator core. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the housing having a cooling channel as taught by Nakazumi to the stator of Towne/Adaniya/Mosciatti in order to provide securement for the stator with a cooling function.
In re claims 15-16, with respect to the method of forming the heat radiation exterior member, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e heat radiation exterior member, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. curing a resin composition (using resin material itself, including polyester resin, and also including a heat dissipation filler made of magnesium oxide to surround the coil is discussed in column 4, paragraph 2). In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
With respect to the specific values of the properties of the heat radiation exterior member and the heat transfer filling material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the claimed material property values for these structures, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, at the top of page 4 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, in fact, it is suggested that these values are not required for proper functionality and other values may be used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837