STATOR FOR A ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE

DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-13 & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 11,355,975) in view of Tsuiki (US Pat.Pub.2018/0251417) and Yoshinaga et al. (US Pat.Pub.2006/0279160). Regarding claim 1, Deng teaches a stator 100 for a rotary electric machine, comprising: a radially interior ring comprising teeth 220 and slots (not numbered)…extending between the teeth…, coils (winding) arranged in a distributed manner in the slots, having electrical conductors arranged in an ordered fashion in the slots (c.1:29-34), and a radially outer yoke attached in contact with the ring, the yoke being formed of assembled sectors, the stator comprising an axial stack of axially and circumferentially assembled sectors (first and second plural laminations) 110, 120, a first interface (e.g., first side edge 241; Fig.2B) defined between two adjacent sectors 110 (or 120) located at a first abscissa (not numbered) along the axis of rotation of the machine being angularly offset with respect to a second interface defined between two adjacent sectors 110 (or 120) located at a second abscissa (not numbered) along the axis of rotation, which second abscissa is different from the first abscissa (annotated Fig.1 below), each interface defined between two adjacent sectors 110 (or 120) being radially aligned with respect to a slot of the slots of the radially interior ring (Figs.1-2A). PNG media_image1.png 495 731 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 504 488 media_image2.png Greyscale Deng’s radially interior ring comprising teeth and slots does not “ope[n] radially towards the outside” and does not comprise “bridges of material connecting each two adjacent teeth of the interior ring at their base and defining the bottom of the slot between these each two adjacent teeth and defining the interior ring as one unitary piece.” Also, the second abscissa is not “axially offset from the first abscissa” (i.e., the interfaces of sectors 110, 120 are axially aligned; Fig.1). But, regarding the first difference, Tsuiki teaches a stator 1 comprising a radially interior ring (inner core) 81 comprising teeth 3 and slots 5 opening radially towards the outside and extending between the teeth and bridges of material (connection portions) 10 connecting two adjacent teeth of the interior ring at their base and defining the bottom of the slot between these two adjacent teeth (¶[0106]-¶[0108]; Figs.23-24). Tsuiki’s radially interior ring is formed as one member in a linear shape and during manufacture is rolled while the connection portions are plastically deformed (¶[0107]). This prevents damage of coils, reduces the number of components and has excellent productivity (¶[0001]; ¶[0108]) and configuring the divided inner cores to be in contact with each other at the connection portions for the tooth portions reduces a factor that contributes to an increase in cogging torque (¶[0084]). PNG media_image3.png 301 674 media_image3.png Greyscale Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure Deng’s radially interior ring to be open radially towards the outside with bridges of material connecting each two adjacent teeth of the interior ring at their base and defining the bottom of the slot between these each two adjacent teeth and defining the interior ring as one unitary piece since Tsuiki teaches this would have prevented damage of coils during manufacture, reduced the number of components and provided excellent productivity. Regarding the second difference, Yoshinaga teaches a stator core comprising an axial stack of axially and circumferentially assembled sectors (first and second blocks of sheets/units 102/210) 410, 420, a first interface (butted surface) 103 defined between two adjacent sectors 410 located at a first abscissa (not numbered) along the axis of rotation of the machine being angularly offset with respect to a second interface 103 defined between two adjacent sectors 420 located at a second abscissa (not numbered) along the axis of rotation, which second abscissa is different from the first abscissa, wherein the second abscissa is axially offset from the first abscissa (i.e., positions of the butted surfaces in each core member are differentiated in the circumferential direction from those in other core members adjacent to each core member in the axial direction; ¶[0008]; ¶[0060]; Figs.2-3). By axially offsetting the first and second abscissa, the magnetic resistance of the core is made uniform along the circumferential direction (¶[0008]). PNG media_image4.png 474 657 media_image4.png Greyscale Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to axially offset the first and second abscissa of Deng and Tsuiki since Yoshinaga teaches this would have made the magnetic resistance of the core uniform along the circumferential direction. Regarding claim 2, Deng’s sectors of the yoke each having an angular extent of between 18 and 180° (Fig.6A). Similarly, Tsuiki’s sectors 9 of the yoke each having an angular extent of between 18 and 180° (Fig.3). Regarding claim 3, Deng’s yoke comprises, in cross section, between 2 and 20 sectors (Fig.6A). Similarly, Tsuiki’s yoke comprises, in cross section, between 2 and 20 sectors, i.e., four sectors (Fig.3). Regarding claim 4, Deng’s two adjacent sectors of the yoke define therebetween an interface S extending in a substantially radial plane (Figs.1&2B). Similarly, Tsuiki’s two adjacent sectors 9 of the yoke define therebetween an interface S extending in a substantially radial plane (Fig.3). Regarding claim 5, in Deng the radial plane of each interface S passes through a center of a slot (Figs.1-2A). Similarly, in Tsuiki the radial plane of each interface S passes through a center of a slot (Fig.3). Regarding claim 6, Deng’s angular offset is between one and ten teeth (Fig.1). Similarly, Tsuiki’s angular offset is between one and ten teeth, i.e., the interfaces S are offset approximately three teeth (Fig.3). Regarding claim 7, Deng’s sectors of the yoke comprise surface reliefs (notches/lugs) 245/246 which make it possible to clip them together (Fig.2B). Similarly, Tsuiki’s sectors 9 of the yoke comprise surface reliefs (swage portions) 11 which make it possible to clip them together (¶[0060]). Regarding claim 8, Deng’s ring and yoke comprise, respectively, first and second reliefs (protrusions/openings) 222/247 which cooperate with one another (Fig.2B). Tsuiki’s ring and yoke comprise, respectively, first and second reliefs (swage portions) 11, 12 which cooperate with one another (Figs.4&6). Regarding claim 9, Tsuiki’s bridges of material comprise zones magnetically saturated during the operation of the machine, in particular zones of smaller width (i.e., bridges 10 are thinner that the rest of the teeth; Fig.4). Regarding claim 11, Deng’s stator is part of an electric machine with a rotor (c.1:20-26). Similarly, Tsuiki’s stator is part of an electric machine with a rotor 101 (Fig.1). Regarding claim 12, Tsuiki’s sectors 9 are attached radially on the ring to form the yoke in contact with the ring (Fig.3). Regarding claim 13, at least with respect to a longitudinal cross-section, the slots of both Deng and Tsuiki are rectangular. Regarding claim 15, in Deng a plurality of consecutive sectors 410, 420 each comprising a stack of sheets 102/210 are encountered when moving in parallel with the axis of rotation of the machine (Fig.3). Regarding claim 16, in Deng the teeth have a same shape (Fig.1). Regarding claim 17, the same grounds of rejection apply as with respect to claim 1 above. Regarding the added product-by-process feature “wherein the interior ring is obtained by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then shaping it into a ring by deformation of the bridges of material connecting the teeth,” per MPEP 2113(I), product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven 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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the methods of cutting and shaping of the interior ring do not distinguish any particular interior ring structure and therefore are not given patentable weight. Further, in the combination, Tsuiki’s radially interior ring (inner core) 81 is obtained by cutting (stamping) plate material and then shaping it into a ring by deformation of the bridges of material (¶[0106]-¶[0107]; Figs.24-25). This prevents damage of coils, reduces the number of components, provides excellent productivity, and reduces a factor that contributes to an increase in cogging torque. Regarding claim 18, the same grounds of rejection apply as with respect to claim 1 above. It is further noted that Deng’s radially interior ring comprising teeth 220 and slots (not numbered) extending between the teeth and yoke (sub-yoke parts 210, 310 comprising first/second laminations 110, 120) comprise, respectively, first and second reliefs (i.e., first protrusion and first opening) 222, 247 which cooperate so as to immobilize the yoke with respect to the ring (c.8:11-14), the first reliefs 222 having a same shape (Figs.2A-2B). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng, Tsuiki & Yoshinaga, further in view of Koa et al. (US Pat.Pub.2022/0069652). None of Deng, Tsuiki & Yoshinaga specifically teach the coils of electrical conductors of the distributed winding are arranged in each slot in two radially stacked coils of different phases. But, Koa teaches a double-layer distributed winding for a stator armature 100 comprising electrical conductors arranged in each slot in two radially stacked coils 10a-n of different phases, to provide an end winding that is very compact (¶[0054]-¶[0055]; Fig.3A). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to arrange the coils of electrical conductors of the distributed winding of Deng, Tsuiki & Yoshinaga in each slot in two radially stacked coils of different phases since Koa teaches this would have provided an end winding that is very compact. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (WO 00/72426) in view of Asao et al. (US 6,281,612). Enomoto teaches a stator for a rotary electric machine, comprising: a radially interior ring (tooth assembly) 21a comprising teeth 21 and slots 23 opening radially towards the outside and extending between the teeth, bridges of material (corresponding to tips 211a which are connected and form a circumference together when attached to core back, English machine translation p.3 & p.8) connecting each two adjacent teeth 21 of the interior ring at their base and defining the bottom of the slot 23 between these two adjacent teeth (Figs.4&14a) and defining the interior ring as one unitary piece (i.e., belt-shaped member teeth 21 made into a unit and manufactured in a connected state; English translation p.8; Figs.14a&15), coils 1 arranged…in the slots, having electrical conductors (wires) arranged in an ordered fashion in the slots 23, and a radially outer yoke (core back) 22 attached in contact with the ring 21a, the yoke being formed of assembled sectors (blocks) 220, the stator comprising an axial stack of axially and circumferentially assembled sectors (i.e., plural pieces laminated into blocks 220), a first interface (at ends 220b) defined between two adjacent sectors located at a first abscissa along the axis of rotation of the machine being angularly offset with respect to a second interface 220b defined between two adjacent sectors located at a second abscissa along the axis of rotation, which second abscissa is different from the first abscissa and axially offset from the first abscissa (i.e., blocks 220a shifted in circumferential direction by a slot pitch; English translation pp.16-17; Figs.24b), and wherein the interior ring 21a is obtained by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then shaping it into a ring by deformation of the bridges of material connecting the teeth 21 (English translation p.8; Figs.14a&15). PNG media_image5.png 574 240 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 695 404 media_image6.png Greyscale Enomoto’s coils 1 each comprise at least one electrical conductor (wire), with the coils in particular being arranged in the slots. However, Enomoto’s coils are not arranged in a “distributed manner”. But, Asao teaches a stator including coils comprising electric conductors 67 with rectangular cross section to provide high radial rigidity to the stator and reduce vibration and electromagnetic noise (c.10:6-28; Fig.11). The coils may be wound in either a concentrated or distributed winding method (c.10:29-32; Figs.4&9). PNG media_image7.png 273 382 media_image7.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to arrange Enomoto’s coils in a distributed manner since Asao teaches concentrated and distributed windings were well known equivalents for stator windings. Regarding claim 18, the same grounds of rejection apply as for claim 17. It is further noted Enomoto’s radially interior ring comprising teeth 21 and slots 23 extending between the teeth and yoke (core back) 22 comprise, respectively, first and second reliefs have the same shape for a given lamination layer (Fig.2A). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claims 1 & 17 over Deng, Tsuiki & Yoshinaga, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to replace the separate teeth parts of Deng with Tsuiki's unitary inner ring because this would have “sacrificed the benefits” of better material utilization Deng’s separate teeth parts provide (Response, pp.2-4). Applicant’s argument does not bear scrutiny. Regarding material utilization, Deng teaches “...when a silicon steel sheet is stamped to form a stator, the material within the inner diameter cannot be used for other purposes and is wasted due to the blanking requirement of fixed inner and outer diameters of the stator” (c.1:32-36) and “…due to the blanking requirement of fixed inner and outer diameters of the stator, the material within the inner diameter cannot be used for other purposes” (c.6:48-52). But, Tsuiki’s unitary inner ring (connection portion) 10 comprises material within the diameter of teeth 3 and outer core/yoke 9, i.e., at the inner side X1 in the radial direction of teeth 3 (¶[0060]; Figs.23-24). Utilizing Tsuiki's unitary inner ring would thus not involve waste as understood by Deng since Tsuiki utilizes the material within the stator’s inner diameter. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the combination would actually provide better material utilization, at least with respect to the prior art method discussed by Deng where the inner diameter cannot be used. Put another way, insofar as providing better material utilization, any alleged difference between Deng and Deng combined with Tsuiki would be merely a matter of degree, not kind. Furthermore, the combination would not be unsatisfactory for Deng’s intended purpose of providing the material & magnetic benefits flowing from separate teeth and yoke parts since use of Tsuiki's unitary inner ring does not alter the separation between Deng’s teeth and yoke parts. That is, while the combination of Deng & Tsuiki proposes a unitary piece comprising teeth connected by bridges, this unit would still be separate from the yoke parts and thus accrue material & magnetic benefits. Again, any alleged difference in this respect is merely a matter of degree, not kind. Further, with respect to magnetic benefits, Tsuiki explicitly teaches that “…the divided inner cores may be configured to be in contact with each other at the connection portions for the tooth portions. In this case, a factor that contributes to an increase in cogging torque is reduced” (¶[0084]). Thus, the combination of Deng and Tsuiki would not be without an explicit “magnetic benefit”. As to the argument that preventing damage of coils in Tsuiki comes from the entire assembly method and could be achieved without modifying Deng’s separated teeth parts, it is noted that in all of Tsuiki’s Embodiments 1-3, the coils are disposed in the slots of the inner core before the outer cores are inserted from an outer side in the radial direction and fitted together (¶[0023]-¶[0025]; Figs.8-12; Figs.19-25) in contrast to prior art methods where the tooth is mounted after a winding is provided (¶[0008]). The fact that Tsuiki’s outer cores are inserted from the outer side is a consequence of the structure of the connecting portions/bridges on the inner cores, as these prevent coils from being inserted or wound from a radially inner side. Thus, while not explicit, the benefit of reduced damage to the coils flows from the structure of Tsuiki’s connecting portions/bridges. Moreover, Tsuiki explicitly teaches Embodiment 3 utilizing the unitary inner core (Figs.23-25) provides the same advantageous effects as those in the other embodiments where separate cores are utilized as well as improved productivity since the inner core is formed of one member (¶[0108]). Thus, Tsuiki explicitly provides motivation for use of a unitary inner core. Also, Tsuiki explicitly teaches that in the method “…the connection portions 10 at the inner side X1 in the radial direction X of the four inner cores 8 are brought into contact with the outer periphery of a columnar core metal 13 and arranged in an annular shape” (¶[0067]; Fig.8) and that “…the divided inner cores may be configured to be in contact with each other at the connection portions for the tooth portions. In this case, a factor that contributes to an increase in cogging torque is reduced” (¶[0084]). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Tsuiki further suggests connecting divided inner cores into a unitary inner core provides a role in manufacturing and the benefit of reduced cogging torque. Regarding the rejection of claim 18 and the feature of “the ring [25] and the yoke [29] comprise, respectively, first [40] and second reliefs [50] which cooperate so as to immobilize the yoke with respect to the ring, the first reliefs having a same shape” (Fig.4), Applicant argues Deng does not disclose an embodiment with same-shaped reliefs in all layers (Response, p.5). This is not persuasive because the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., first reliefs having a same shape in all layers) is not recited in the rejected claim. 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). Insofar as the noted claim features are concerned, as noted in the rejection, Deng’s first reliefs have a “same shape” at least in one layer 110 of the laminations (Fig.1). Furthermore, construed broadly as a contour or form of the boundary, the “shape” of Deng’s reliefs 222 and 322 in different layers (Fig.2B & 3B) is the same. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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. /BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834