DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 1: The phrase “said strap comprising” as recited in line 4 appears to be --said at least one strap comprising--.
The phrase “inside closed slots of a stator” as recited in line 5 appears to be --inside closed slots of the stator--.
After the phrase “included between the teeth;” as recited in line 13, inserts a phrase –and--.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “characterized in that it further comprises the following steps:” as recited in lines 2 and 3 appears to be –further comprising:--.
After the phrase “a step of insulating the welding spots;” as recited in line 4, inserts a phrase –and--.
Re. claim 7: The phrase “the strap is wound on the first stator part” as recited in line 3 appears to be --the at least one strap is wound on the first stator part--.
The phrase “with respect to the strap” as recited in line 5 appears to be --with respect to the at least one strap--.
Re. claim 9: The phrase “it comprises” as recited in line 3 appears to be --the continuous winding comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Re. claim 1: The phrase “the lower part” as recited in line 9 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrase “a step of making the winding on the first, internal stator part of said at least one strap” as recited in lines 11 and 12 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in line 8, the first, internal stator part is provided, not part of the at least one strap. Clarification is required.
The phrase “the straps” as recited in line 12 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrase “the two free ends” as recited in line 14 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “the welding spots” as recited in line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 3: The phrase “every first sector being connected in at least one end thereof to a second sector” as recited in line 4 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in line 6, there are the plurality of second bending sectors. It is unclear as to whether the second sector is one of the ty of second bending sectors or a new second sector.
Re. claim 4: The phrase “the two ends” as recited in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 6: The phrase “characterized in that it comprises” as recited in lines 2 and 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the “it” is meant.
The phrase “a strap for every electric phase” as recited in line 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in line 3 of claim 1, the at least one strap in a single piece is made by bending on a plane at least one strip. It is unclear as to whether the “a strap” is the at least one strap of claim 1 or a new strap. Clarification is required.
Re. claim 8: The phrase “the section of each strap” and “the section of the closed slots” as recited in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrase “the section of each strap has the shape” as recited in line 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in line 3 of claim 1, the at least one strap in a single piece is made by bending on a plane at least one strip. The at least one strap can be only one strap. Therefore, the section of each strap is not clear as to what the “each strap” is indicated.
Re. claim 9: The phrases “the first, internal stator part” as recited in line 5, and “the spaces” and “the teeth” as recited in line 6 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 10: The phrase “being every first sector connected in at least one end thereof to a second sector” as recited in line 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the thereof is meant. Clarification is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-10 of copending Application No. 17/776,297 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1 and 3-10 of copending Application No. 17/776,297 clearly anticipate the claims 1-7, 9 and 10 of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-10 of copending Application No. 17/776,296 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1 and 4-10 of copending Application No. 17/776,297 clearly anticipate the claims 1-7, 9 and 10 of the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (PGPub 2016/0056696 A1).
Ito et al. teach a process for making a continuous winding for a stator of an electric machine, comprising steps of: bending on a plane at least one strip (17, Fig. 4) to make at least one strap (11, Fig. 11) in a single piece (paragraph [0045]), wherein the at least one strap includes a plurality of first sectors (12) configured to be inserted inside closed slots of a stator (5, Fig. 8) and mutually connected by a plurality of second bending sectors (13, Fig. 5), paragraphs [0050] and [0054]) configured to remain outside the closed slots of the stator (i.e., Fig. 16 and Fig. 19); providing a first, internal stator part (3, Fig. 2) including a plurality of longitudinal teeth (6), spaced by a space configured to make the lower part of the closed slots of the stator (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]); making the winding on the first, internal stator part of the at least one strap, placing the first sectors of the straps into the spaces included between the teeth (Figs. 7 and 8, paragraph [0050]); and connecting the two free ends (15) of at least one strap as shown in Fig. 1 (paragraph [0045]).
Re. claim 3: The first sectors are mutually parallel and alternated with the second sectors as shown in Fig. 5, wherein every first sector is connected in at least one end every first sector to a second sector of the plurality of second bending sectors (paragraphs [0045] and [0050]).
Re. claim 4: The two ends of each first sector are connected to two different second sectors as shown in Figs 1, 5 and 7.
Re. claim 5: Three straps are made and wound mutually alternated on the first, internal stator part as shown in Figs. 1 and 7.
Re. claim 6: Ito et al. also teach that a strap is every electric phase (paragraphs [0040] and [0072]).
Re. claim 7: The at least one strap is wound on the first stator part, in the spaces included between the teeth (Fig. 8), through a relative rotation of the first, internal stator part with respect to the at least one strap (Fig. 9, paragraph [0054]).
Re. claim 8: The section of the at least one strap has a shape of the section of the closed slots of the stator as shown in Fig. 10.
Re. claim 9: Ito et al. also teach that a plurality of first sectors is mutually connected by a plurality of second sectors alternated thereto as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the at least one strap is configured for be wound on the first, internal stator part by placing the first sectors in the spaces included between the teeth as shown in Fig. 10.
Re. claim 10: The first sectors are mutually parallel as shown in Fig. 5, being every first sector connected in at least one end thereof to a second sector, and in that the winding comprises three mutually alternated straps as shown in Figs. 1 and 7.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roer et al. (PGPub 2018/0152069 A1).
Ito et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent a step of insulating the welding spots and a step of checking an absence of connection errors, welding problems or of short- circuit problems. Roer et al. teach a process for making a stator including processes of induction welding the free ends (18, 20, Fig. 3) of the windings (10) follow by insulating the welding spots (by applying a glass-fiber-reinforced plastic 28, paragraph [0067]) and checking an absence of connection errors, welding problems or of short-circuit problems (i.e., one continuous piece of the winding of the stator is highly cumbersome and must expediently be performed by hand in order-in particular at the bend points-to monitor the integrity of the wires and also the insulation of the wire already during the winding process, paragraph [0002]). In addition, Roer et al. also teach that the electrical connection is tested to identify a short circuit (i.e., the electrical connection is produced merely for the purposes of testing the production of the screw connection. The interconnection of the coils during later use differs from the connection configuration illustrated, and is accordingly merely exemplary. Specifically, the interconnection configuration illustrated in FIG. 6 involves a self-contained strand, that is to say a short circuit, paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a continuous winding for a stator of Ito et al. by insulating the welding spots and checking an absence of connection errors, welding problems or of short- circuit problems as taught by Roer et al. in order to ensure proper insulation of the windings thereby preventing short-circuits that would stop the stator from functioning as intended.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondou et al. (PGPub 2011/0101816 A1) and Murakami et al. (PGPub 2001/0019234 A1) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a process for making a continuous winding for a stator of an electric machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached on 571-272-9773. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729