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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, page 7 whole page to page 10 lines 1 – 11, with respect to claims 1 – 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Masuda (WO 2018180721 A1), Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Masuda and further in view of Graves et al., and Claims 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Masuda and further in view of Naganawa et al.
In response to applicant's argument, page 10 lines 12 – 20 to page 11 lines 1 – 11 that "Hasebe's disclosure hinges on replacing concentrated tooth windings with distributed conductor bars between separate stator cores to increase reluctance torque and reduce size. In contrast, Yokoyama's disclosure hinges on a specific tooth-and-slot stator with concentrated coils, whose tooth count, pole count, magnet grooves, and lead-wire positions are all tuned to the vibration and cogging-torque behavior of particular in-vehicle devices. To combine these references would not be a matter of simply adding structure from Yokoyama to Hasebe because that would change the entire structure, functionality, and the benefits provided by Hasebe", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument, page 11 lines 19 – 21, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hasebe et al.’s stator body is modified to have wherein the grooves only extend a partial axial depth into the stator body relative to an axial thickness of the stator body of Yokohama et al. for the purpose of providing more space for the windings to be wound to maintain proper alignment and positioning of the windings between the plurality of teeth of the stator.
In response to applicant's argument, page 12 lines 1 – 7, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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:
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.
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, 3 – 5, and 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Masuda.
Regarding Claim 1, Hasebe et al. discloses a stator (2) of a rotary electric machine (1) (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1),
the stator comprising:
a stator body (3) having a plurality of stator teeth (individual iron cores) arranged in a circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1) and grooves (6) formed between the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1);
conductor sections (5), arranged in the grooves, of at least one conductor pair (5a, 5b) (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4) which forms at least a portion of stator windings (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 1 – 2);
wherein, in each said groove, the conductor sections of the conductor pair are arranged along a depth of the groove so as to be parallel to and offset from one another (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 6 – 9) and a sequence of an arrangement of the parallel conductor sections in each said groove (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1), through which the conductors run, alternates in a circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Para [0024] lines 1 – 4);
and wherein the conductors of the at least one conductor pair, deviating from a winding direction extending basically in the circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1),
meander in a radial direction in a direction extending substantially perpendicular to the circumferential direction and, by an enlacement formed thereby in each case, enlace around one group of the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1).
Hasebe et al. does not disclose:
wherein winding heads of each of the stator windings lay radially flat against a radially outermost surface of the stator body.
Masuda discloses:
wherein winding heads of each of the stator windings (10) lay radially flat against a radially outermost surface of the stator body (iron core 7) (Masuda Fig. 1).
Hasebe et al. and Masuda disclose a stator with windings therefore, Masuda constitutes as prior art. Masuda discloses a stator with a stator body having windings that are laid radially flat against a radially outer surface of the stator body. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein winding heads of each of the stator windings lay radially flat against a radially outer surface of the stator body of Masuda the purpose of having a larger radius in torque for the rotary electric machine.
Regarding Claim 3, Hasebe et al. and Masuda disclose the stator according to claim 1, wherein the stator is configured for an n-phase rotary electric machine (Hasebe et al. Para [0031] lines 5 – 6),
the at least one conductor pair comprises n conductor pairs (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4 discloses multiple slots with 5a, 5b conductor pairs),
which are connected to one of n phases each (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4),
only the conductor sections of one of the n phases are arranged in a respective one of the groove (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4),
and the conductors of the conductor pair enlace a group of n of the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4 and Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Hasebe et al. and Masuda discloses the stator according to claim 3, wherein the conductor sections of a plurality of stator windings of the at least one conductor pair are arranged in a respective one of the grooves (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Hasebe et al. and Masuda discloses the stator according to claim 4, wherein the stator windings are arranged side by side along the depth of the groove so as to be parallel to and offset from one another (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 6 – 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Hasebe et al. discloses a method for producing a stator (2) of a rotary electric machine (1) (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1),
the method comprising:
providing a stator body (3) having a plurality of stator teeth (individual stator cores) arranged in a circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1) and grooves (6) formed between the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1);
providing at least one conductor pair (5a, 5b) and arranging conductor sections of the at least one conductor pair in the grooves (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4),
so that the at least one conductor pair forms at least a portion of stator windings (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 1 – 2);
in each groove, arranging conductor sections of the at least one conductor pair along a depth of the groove so as to be parallel to and offset from one another such that a sequence of an arrangement of the parallel conductor sections in each groove (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 6 – 9), through which the conductors run, alternates in the circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Para [0024] lines 1 – 4);
arranging the conductors of the at least one conductor pair such that they, deviating from a winding direction extending basically in the circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1),
meander in a radial direction in a direction extending substantially perpendicular to the circumferential direction forming an enlacement in each case (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1);
and enlacing around one group of the stator teeth with the enlacement (Hasebe Fig. 1).
Hasebe et al. does not discloses:
arranging winding heads of each of the stator windings to lay radially flat against a radially outer surface of the stator body.
Masuda discloses:
arranging winding heads of each of the stator windings (10) to lay radially flat against a radially outermost surface of the stator body (iron core 7) (Masuda Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Hasebe et al. and Masuda disclose a stator with windings therefore, Masuda constitutes as prior art. Masuda discloses a stator with a stator body having windings that are laid radially flat against a radially outer surface of the stator body. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange winding heads of each of the stator windings to lay radially flat against a radially outermost surface of the stator body of Masuda for the purpose of having a larger radius in torque for the rotary electric machine.
Regarding Claim 10, Hasebe et al. and Masuda discloses a rotary electric machine comprising (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1);
a rotor (9) (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1);
and the stator according to claim 1 (see above in rejection of claim 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Masuda and further in view of Graves et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Hasebe et al. and Masuda discloses the stator according to claim 1, wherein conductors of the at least one conductor pair are designed to have current flowing therethrough in different circumferential directions (Hasebe et al. Para [0040] lines 1 – 5).
Hasebe et al. and Masuda do not disclose:
a respective one of the conductors of the at least one conductor pair enlaces the group of stator teeth on different radial sides so that the current flow occurs in a respective one of the common grooves in both of the conductors along a same direction.
Hasebe et al. and Greaves et al. structurally discloses: a respective one of the conductors of the at least one conductor pair enlaces the group of stator teeth (individual iron cores) (of Hasebe et al. Fig. 1) on different radial sides so that the current flow (of Greaves et al. Fig 5) occurs in a respective one of the common grooves (of Hasebe et al. Fig 7) in both of the conductors (of Greaves et al. Fig 5) along a same direction (of Greaves et al. Fig. 5).
Hasebe et al., Masuda, and Greaves et al. discloses winding of conductors therefore, Greaves et al. constitutes prior art. Greaves et al. discloses a winding arrangement wherein there are two conductors that create two end turns on different radial sides. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a respective one of the conductors of the at least one conductor pair enlaces the group of stator teeth on different radial sides so that the current flow occurs in a respective one of the common grooves in both of the conductors along a same direction of structurally disclosed Hasebe et al. and Greaves et al. for the purpose of optimizing delivery of electric power to the motor.
Claims 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Masuda and further in view of Naganawa et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Hasebe et al. and Masuda disclose the stator according to claim 3.
Hasebe et al. and Masuda do not disclose:
wherein a transition between the stator windings of the conductors is implemented by transition sections of the conductors, each of the transition sections having a circumferential length corresponding to a distance between two adjacent ones of the grooves in which one of the conductors extends.
Naganawa et al. discloses:
wherein a transition between the stator windings (207) of the conductors is implemented by transition sections of the conductors (see below in annotated Naganawa et al. Fig. 7), each of the transition sections having a circumferential length corresponding to a distance between two adjacent ones of the grooves in which one of the conductors extends (see below in annotated Naganawa et al. Fig. 7).
Hasebe et al., Masuda, and Naganawa et al. disclose stator windings therefore, Naganawa et al. constitutes prior art. Naganawa et al. discloses a winding arrangement wherein there are transition sections between distributed windings. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a transition between the stator windings of the conductors is implemented by transition sections of the conductors, and each of the transition sections having a circumferential length corresponding to a distance between two adjacent ones of the grooves in which one of the conductors extends of Naganawa et al. for the purpose of optimizing electrical winding connections in between stator teeth.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Hasebe et al., Masuda, and Naganawa et al. disclose the stator according to claim 6.
Hasebe et al. and Masuda do not disclose:
wherein the transition section of the conductor extends into an adjacent plane of a conductor arrangement after one of the stator windings is completed.
Naganawa et al. discloses:
wherein the transition section of the conductor extends into an adjacent plane of a conductor arrangement after one of the stator windings is completed (see above in annotated Naganawa et al. Fig. 7).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the transition section of the conductor extends into an adjacent plane of a conductor arrangement after one of the stator windings is completed of Naganawa et al. for the purpose of optimizing electrical winding connections in between stator teeth.
Regarding Claim 8, Hasebe et al. and Masuda disclose the stator according to claim 3.
Hasebe et al. and Masuda do not disclose:
wherein at least length sections of the conductors which enlace the group of n of the stator teeth are made without welding conductor elements to form the length sections.
Naganawa et al. discloses:
wherein at least length sections of the conductors which enlace the group of n of the stator teeth (211) are made without welding conductor elements to form the length sections (Naganawa et al. Fig. 5 discloses conductors are held together using a wire pin 212).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein at least length sections of the conductors which enlace the group of n of the stator teeth are made without welding conductor elements to form the length sections of Naganawa et al. for the purpose of have secure connection between conductors in the stator.
Claims 11 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Yokoyama et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Hasabe et al. teach:
A stator (2) for a rotary electric machine (1) (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1),
the stator comprising:
a stator body (3) having a plurality of stator teeth (individual iron cores) arranged in a circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1) and grooves (6) formed between the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1);
a conductor pair (5a, 5b) having conductor sections arranged in the grooves (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4);
wherein, in each said groove, the conductor sections of the conductor pair are arranged along a depth of the groove so as to be parallel to and offset from one another and a sequence of an arrangement of the parallel conductor sections in each said groove (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 6 – 9),
through which the conductors run, alternates in a circumferential direction (Hasebe et al. Para [0024] lines 1 – 4);
and wherein the conductors of the conductor pair deviate from a winding direction that extends in the circumferential direction and meander in a radial direction that is perpendicular to the circumferential direction to form an enlacement in each case that enlaces around one group of the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1).
Hasebe et al. does not disclose:
wherein the grooves only extend a partial axial depth into the stator body relative to an axial thickness of the stator body.
Yokoyama et al. discloses:
wherein the grooves (45) only extend a partial axial depth into the stator body relative to an axial thickness of the stator body (Yokoyama et al. Fig. 3).
Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose a stator teeth with grooves therefore, Yokoyama et al. constitutes as prior art. Yokoyama et al. discloses a stator body with a stator teeth having grooves that extend partially within the stator body. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the grooves only extend a partial axial depth into the stator body relative to an axial thickness of the stator body of Yokoyama et al. for the purpose of providing more space for the windings to be wound between the plurality of teeth of the stator.
Regarding Claim 13, Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose the stator according to claim 11, wherein the stator is configured for an n-phase rotary electric machine (Hasebe et al. Para [0031] lines 5 – 6), there are n conductor pairs (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4), including the conductor pair (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4), which are connected to one of n phases each (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4), only the conductor sections of one of the n phases are arranged in a respective one of the groove (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4), and the conductors enlace a group of n of the stator teeth (Hasebe et al. Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose the stator according to claim 13, wherein the conductor sections of a plurality of stator windings of the conductor pair are arranged in a respective one of the grooves (Hasebe et al. Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose the stator according to claim 14, wherein the conductor pair forms at least a portion of stator windings that are arranged side by side along the depth of the groove so as to be parallel to and offset from one another (Hasebe et al. Para [0023] lines 6 – 9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. and further in view of Greaves et al.
Regarding Claim 12, Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose the stator according to claim 11, wherein the conductors of the conductor pair are configured to have current flowing therethrough in different circumferential directions (Hasebe et al. Para [0040] lines 1 – 5).
Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. do not disclose:
a respective one of the conductors enlaces the group of stator teeth on different radial sides so that the current flow occurs in a respective one of the common grooves in both of the conductors along a same direction.
Hasebe et al. and Greaves et al. structurally discloses:
a respective one of the conductors enlaces the group of stator teeth (individual iron cores) (of Hasebe et al. Fig. 1) on different radial sides so that the current flow (of Greaves et al. Fig 5) occurs in a respective one of the common grooves (of Hasebe et al. Fig 7) in both of the conductors (of Greaves et al. Fig 5) along a same direction (of Greaves et al. Fig. 5).
Hasebe et al., Yokoyama et al., and Greaves et al. discloses winding of conductors therefore, Greaves et al. constitutes prior art. Greaves et al. discloses a winding arrangement wherein there are two conductors that create two end turns on different radial sides. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a respective one of the conductors enlaces the group of stator teeth on different radial sides so that the current flow occurs in a respective one of the common grooves in both of the conductors along a same direction of structurally disclosed Hasebe et al. and Greaves et al. for the purpose of optimizing delivery of electric power to the motor.
Claims 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. in view of Yokoyama et al. and further in view of Naganawa et al.
Regarding Claim 16, Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose the stator according to claim 15.
Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. do not disclose:
wherein a transition between the stator windings of the conductors is implemented by transition sections of the conductors, each of the transition sections having a circumferential length corresponding to a distance between two adjacent ones of the grooves in which one of the conductors extends.
Naganawa et al. discloses:
wherein a transition between the stator windings (207) of the conductors is implemented by transition sections of the conductors (see above in annotated Naganawa et al. Fig. 7),
each of the transition sections having a circumferential length corresponding to a distance between two adjacent ones of the grooves in which one of the conductors extends (see above in annotated Naganawa et al. Fig. 7).
Hasebe et al., Yokoyama et al., and Naganawa et al. disclose stator windings therefore, Naganawa et al. constitutes prior art. Naganawa et al. discloses a winding arrangement wherein there are transition sections between distributed windings. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a transition between the stator windings of the conductors is implemented by transition sections of the conductors, and each of the transition sections having a circumferential length corresponding to a distance between two adjacent ones of the grooves in which one of the conductors extends of Naganawa et al. for the purpose of optimizing electrical winding connections in between stator teeth.
Regarding Claim 17, Hasebe et al., Yokoyama et al., and Naganawa et al. disclose the stator according to claim 16.
Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. do not disclose:
wherein the transition section of the conductor extends into an adjacent plane of a conductor arrangement after one of the stator windings is completed.
Naganawa et al. discloses:
wherein the transition section of the conductor extends into an adjacent plane of a conductor arrangement after one of the stator windings is completed (see above in annotated Naganawa et al. Fig. 7).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the transition section of the conductor extends into an adjacent plane of a conductor arrangement after one of the stator windings is completed of Naganawa et al. for the purpose of optimizing electrical winding connections in between stator teeth.
Regarding Claim 18, Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose the stator according to claim 13.
Hasebe et al. and Yokoyama et al. do not disclose:
wherein at least length sections of the conductors which enlace the group of n of the stator teeth are made without welding conductor elements to form the length sections.
Naganawa et al. discloses:
wherein at least length sections of the conductors which enlace the group of n of the stator teeth (211) are made without welding conductor elements to form the length sections (Naganawa et al. Fig. 5 discloses conductors are held together using a wire pin 212).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein at least length sections of the conductors which enlace the group of n of the stator teeth are made without welding conductor elements to form the length sections of Naganawa et al. for the purpose of have secure connection between conductors in the stator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L PERKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 17:00pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached on (571) 272-3560. 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.
/THEODORE L PERKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834