DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on April 15, 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 through 20 remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 2, 2025.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the title and specification.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims in the previous office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been maintained from the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 3 through 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 2019/0305621 to Oka et al (hereinafter “Oka”)2.
Claim 1: Oka discloses a method of manufacturing a stator, the method comprising:
a preparation step of preparing a coil material (e.g. of 3) and a stator core (e.g. 2) having a plurality of slots (e.g. 2a) arranged in a circumferential direction (C)(e.g. Fig. 2);
a winding step of manufacturing a winding coil (e.g. 5) by winding the coil material (e.g. Figs. 3, 7, ¶ [0053]+); and
an insertion step of positioning the winding coil in upper regions of at least some of the plurality of slots and then dropping the winding coil into the at least some of the plurality of slots (e.g. ¶ [0025]);
wherein in the insertion step, the winding coil is dropped into the slot by gravity (e.g. at least the vertical portion of dashed line in Fig. 2).
Claim 3: Oka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a through-hole (G) is defined in a central region of the stator core, and the plurality of slots communicates with the through-hole (G), and
wherein in the insertion step, the winding coil is positioned in the through-hole (G), and then the winding coil is dropped into the at least some of the plurality of slots.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Oka discloses the method of claim 3, wherein in the insertion step, the plurality of slots of the stator core is disposed in a vertical direction [vertical portion of dashed line in Fig. 2], and the winding coil is moved in a horizontal direction [horizontal arrow in Fig. 2] so as to be positioned in the through-hole (G).
Claim 5: Oka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in the preparation step, the coil material is prepared to include a first material (e.g. 32a, 32b), and a second material (e.g. 32h, 32g) provided separately from the first material (e.g. Fig. 7), and
wherein in the winding step, the winding coil includes a first bundle (e.g. 18a, 18b) formed by winding the first material, and a second bundle (e.g. 18c, 18d) formed by winding the second material (e.g. Fig. 3).
Claim 6: Oka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in the winding step, the winding coil includes first bundle (e.g. 18a, 18b) and second bundle (e.g. 18c, 18d) are formed by winding the coil material, and the first and second bundles are integrated by being connected to each other (e.g. Figs. 3, 4, 7, ¶¶ [0053] to [0058]).
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 and 3 through 6, alternatively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of U.S. Publication 2010/0090557 to El-Refaie et al (hereinafter “El-Refaie”).
Oka discloses a method of manufacturing a stator for the reasons stated previously with respect to Claims 1 and 3 through 6, respectively. However, if for some reason it is believed that Oka does not teach that the winding coil is “dropped into the slot by gravity”, mainly because Oka does not explicitly recite the term “dropped”, then El-Refaie discloses such features.
El-Refaie teaches a method of making an art-recognized equivalent stator including an insertion step where a winding coil can be dropped into a stator slot by gravity, to insert the coil within the slot or slots (e.g. Fig. 4, 92, 94, 96, ¶¶ [0011], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the winding coil within the slots by dropping the winding coil into the slot by gravity, as taught by El-Refaie, to achieve the very same insertion step in manufacturing an art-recognized equivalent stator.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
The applicants assert that the prior art does not teach “wherein in the…slot by gravity” (line 9 of Claim 1). The examiner disagrees as Oka meets these limitations for at least the following reasons.
Although there are many definitions for the term of drop, one ordinary meaning of the term can be: the distance from a higher to a lower level or through which something drops3. As shown in Oka’s Figure 2 which is annotated above, the dashed line of Oka shows that the winding coil moves from a distance of a higher level to a lower level to be inserted into the slot. Such features by Oka then meets the ordinary meaning of the term “drop”. With respect to “gravity” and in terms of physics, there is a clear gravitational force associated with the vertical movement of the winding coil by this dashed line, whether or not the winding coil is assisted with any separate structural element for the insertion step. This is analogous to a weight lifter lifting weights. There is certainly gravity in place, or a gravitational force, assisting the weight lifter (human) when placing the weights back onto the ground. The present claim limitations exclude no such assistance.
From page 8 of the applicants specification, applicants further assert that Oka does not teach that the winding coils may be inserted into the slots without receiving separate external power, or that such an insertion prevents the winding coil from being damaged. It is noted that these features are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The resulting arrangement of the winding coils in the slots is shown in Figure 1, which is final structure of the stator.
In the alternative rejection above, El-Refaie teaches that it is known to insert winding coils into slots by dropping them into the slots by gravity. This new grounds of rejection is based on the fact that the limitations from Claim 2 (now cancelled) where incorporated into Claim 1 in its entirety. However, each of Claims 3 through 6 were never dependent from Claim 2 previously, which changes the scope of Claims 3 through 6 entirely.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner maintains the rejections from the previous office action, or has established a prima facie case of obviousness with the alternative rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 through 11 are maintained as being 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.
Conclusion
Applicants amendment filed as part their submission has 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 A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3729
1 Non-Final action, mailed on January 15, 2026.
2 Elements emphasized (in italics) are illustrated in Oka’s annotated Figure 2.
3 DROP Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Prosecution Insights