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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 12 such as “a lamination for a rotor and/or a stator” (entirely) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that Figs. 1 and 2 represented an intermediate product of a rotor 10 and/or stator 11 which is/are not in method inventive formats.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14 ” has been used to designate both rotor part 14 (Fig. 1) and stator part 14(Fig. 2) both are separate intermediate product similar to the above reference 12 has been used to represented lamination stack for separate entity of intermediate product such as rotor 10 and stator 11 . 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. 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: -- A method for producing a lamination stack for electric motor”--.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content appears to be greater than 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: because specs improper refers to claim such as: “in accordance with the preamble of claim 1” (see
¶
001
o
f
t
h
e
specs) and “ in accordance with the preamble of claim 8 (see ¶ [002]) should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The scope of the claims is not clear in that it is not known whether the claims directed to a lamination for a rotor or a stator since the term “and/or” is not clear if applicant intends to pursue the making of both rotor and stator or alternative of rotor or stator. Since both are intermediate product. For clarity of the claims it is suggested the use of: --”A method of the making of a rotor lamination stack”--.
“wherein the lamination stack comprises a stack of disk- or ring-shaped sheet metal laminations which are assembled of sub-segments that each have a radial outer edge, a radial inner edge and two lateral edges, wherein the sub-segments are stamped out of a sheet metal strip having a strip longitudinal direction that corresponds to a rolling direction of the sheet metal strip”(see preamble claim 12, lines 2-5) directed to the product structure of the lamination should be rewritten into positive method claim formats.
“a stack of disk-or ring shaped sheet metal laminations”(claim 12, line 20) is not clear since it is not known exactly what stack shaped applicant intends to claim since 14 of Fig. 1 is not the same as the 14 of Fig. 2.
“and/or radial inner edge” (claim 12, lines 13 and 16) should be more specific or deleted. Since drawing lacking support for such alternative above feature.
“are designed”(claims 13-14, line 2) are not positive method limitation.
Claims 14-20 are in wrong formats since no inventive method features exist in these claims only product claim formats which do not further limit the base claim 12.
It is suggested the following format for claims 13-14
--"wherein the stamping out the sheet metal strip-further comprises identically forming the first subsegments and the second subsegment”--.
--"wherein the stamping out the sheet metal strip-further comprises forming the subsegments includes quarter arc segments”--. Similar to the above claims should be applied to the rest of claims 15-20 respectively for clarity of the method claim formats.
Scope of the claim 21 do not overlap with claim 12 since no method limitation existed in claim 21. It appears that claim 21 directed to a separate entity of an electric machine not the lamination stack as clearly define in base claim 12. It is suggested claim 21 should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
IT is suggested that claims 12-21 should be updated to meet US standard practice since claims appear to be in foreigner claim formats.
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 12-21 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.
Since the scope of the claims 12-21 directed to “A method of making a lamination stack for rotor and/or stator of an electric machine “(see claim 12, line 1-2) and claim recites structure of the lamination stack comprises. . .” as lines 3-7 directed to the related lamination stack structure but lacking of the method limitation which made scope of the claim unclear. In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that the scope of the claim directed to “a lamination stack making process” and claim will be rejected accordingly.
For clarity of the method claim formats it is suggested “the preamble lines 1-7 should be updated to:--”A method for producing a lamination stack for an electric machine comprising:”--.
Lines 3-4 of claim 12 should also be rewritten to:
--providing a sheet metal strip having a strip longitudinal direction that corresponds to a rolling direction of the sheet metal strip—
Further, it is unclear as to how the following limitations such as “arranging first sub-segments in a first row and arranging second sub-segments in a second row,
wherein the first row and the second row are aligned in the strip longitudinal direction of the sheet metal strip and lie next to each other,
wherein the first sub-segments in the first row are aligned identically with respect to each other, wherein the radial outer edge and/or the radial inner edge run transversely to the longitudinal direction of the strip,
wherein the second sub-segments in the second row are arranged identically with respect to each other, with radial outer edges and/or radial inner edges running transversely to the longitudinal direction of the strip, but diametrically opposed to the first sub-segments in the first row on the sheet metal strip,
wherein a circular arc section or a circular arc angle of the respective sub-segment ranges between 200 and 1200; and”(claim 12, lines 8-20) can taken placed after the preamble since thereis lacking of forming subsegments and that associated with claim 12, line 8-20 above. It is also suggested that lines 8-20 of claim 12 should be rearranged after “stamping out”.
The phrase:” stamping out the sheet metal strip such that each sub-segment is stamped out with a groove on a first lateral edge and with a matching tongue on the opposite second lateral edge in order to form a tongue and groove joint to allow for assembling the sub-segments to a sheet metal lamination” (claim 12, lines 21-24) should be updated to reflect method limitation format such as:
--“forming plurality of subsegments by stamping out the sheet metal strip, wherein each sub-segment of the plurality of subsegments further comprise forming a groove on a first lateral edge and with a matching tongue on the opposite second lateral edge to form a tongue and groove joint, said tongue and groove formed configured to assembly the plurality sub-segments together”--.
whether or not “ first sub-segments in a first row and arranging second sub-segments in”(claim 12, lines 8-9) is/are parts of the plurality of segments ? if it is then should be updated to:--“first subsegment of the plurality segments”--, for clarity of the claims.
“to allow for assembling the sub-segments to a sheet metal lamination”(claim 12, lines 23-24) should be deleted since no method inventive feature existed thereto. Also, it is not known if” a sheet metal lamination ”bove is directed to” method of making the lamination stack” as represented in the preamble claim 12, line 1.
The phrases: “are designed” (claims 13-14, line 2); “are substantially aligned”(claim 15, line 2); “are provided”(claim 16, line 2); “is perfomed”(claim 17, line 1); “isformed”(claim 18, line 2); “is produced “(claim 18, line 4, claims 19-20, line 2); “
“the intrlocking”(claim 16, line 1); “the strip plane”(claim 16, line 3) lack proper antecedent basis.
Whether “a stator or rotor of an electric machine” (claim 18, line 2) as same as that as in line 1-2 of the preamble of claim 12?
“a press with at least one stamping tool and/or at least one embossing tool” (claim 17, lines 2-3) directed to associated tool which do not further limit the claimed method and should be deleted since no method limitation therefrom.
Claims 18-21 directed to invention other than the base claim 12 and should be deleted. Since the scope of the claims directed to the lamination stack not the rotor or stator or the electric machine as set forth in above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 12-21 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (JPS 54121902)) in view of Calley et al (20120119599.
Nagai discloses the claimed method for producing a lamination stack for a rotor and/or a stator of an electric machine, wherein the lamination stack comprises a stack of disk- or ring-shaped sheet metal laminations which are assembled of sub-segments that each have a radial outer edge, a radial inner edge and two lateral edges, wherein the sub-segments are stamped out of a sheet metal strip having a strip longitudinal direction that corresponds to a rolling direction of the sheet metal strip, the method comprising:
arranging first sub-segments in a first row and arranging second sub-segments in a second row,
wherein the first row and the second row are aligned in the strip longitudinal direction of the sheet metal strip and lie next to each other (see Fig. 1),
wherein the first sub-segments in the first row are aligned identically with respect to each other, wherein the radial outer edge and/or the radial inner edge run transversely to the longitudinal direction of the strip (see Fig. 1),
wherein the second sub-segments in the second row are arranged identically with respect to each other, with radial outer edges and/or radial inner edges running transversely to the longitudinal direction of the strip, but diametrically opposed to the first sub-segments in the first row on the sheet metal strip,
wherein a circular arc section or a circular arc angle of the respective sub-segment ranges between 20° and 120° (see Fig. 1, for segment angle within range of 20° and 120°); and
stamping out the sheet metal strip such that each sub-segment is stamped out with a groove on a first lateral edge and with a matching tongue on the opposite second lateral edge in order to form a tongue and groove joint to allow for assembling the sub-segments to a sheet metal lamination (see discussed under abstract for stamping out process).
If argues that the Nagai does not teach “the stamping out the sheet metal strip such that each sub-segment is stamped out with a groove on a first lateral edge and with a matching tongue on the opposite second lateral edge in order to form a tongue and groove joint” then Applicant refers to Figs. 6A-B and 7C-D of the Calley which depicts segment is stamped out with a groove on a first lateral edge and with a matching tongue on the opposite second lateral edge in order to form a tongue and groove joint (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Calley ‘s teaching as mentioned above onto the invention of Nagai in order to facilitate the fabrication process.
As applied to claims 13-17 are also met by the Nagai (see Figs. 1-2, 5).
As applied to claim 18-21 there is no method inventive features existed in these claims (see claim objected to and 112 section above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt