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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8 and 15-20, drawn to a method, classified in H02K 15/12.
II. Claims 9-14, drawn to a product, classified in H02K 1/14.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process, such as a 3D printing process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Nicholas Setzer on November 22, 2024 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, Claims 1-8 and 15-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piascik, et al. (US 2016/0226323) in view of Hopkins, et al. (US 10,177,631).
In reference to Claim 1, Piascik discloses creating a stator (Abstract) (a method comprising: forming a stator for a high-power density electric machine), inserting a coil ([0037]) (inserting the stator coils in the plurality of slots); and potting the interior of the housing with an inorganic dielectric filler material ([0037]) (inserting a potting material in the plurality of slots of the stator), creating a precursor layer of a glass-containing paste ([0006]) (diluting the mixture with solvents to form a slurry; drying the slurry to form a paste); layering the paste onto the stack ([0006]) (forming the paste into a shape); and firing the laminate stack ([0006]) (firing the paste to form a ceramic material).
Piascik does not disclose the stator having a plurality of slots for receiving stator coils and having a back-iron; the potting material in thermal contact with adjacent stator coils and in thermal contact with the back-iron; and wherein the potting material is formed by: mixing silicon carbide particles with a silicon carbide preceramic polymer to form a mixture.
Hopkins discloses the coil winding into the slot (19:31-33) (the stator having a plurality of slots for receiving stator coils and having a back-iron); thermal transfer from portions of the stator with potting material (20:24-27) with the back-iron assembly (8:54-58) (the potting material in thermal contact with adjacent stator coils and in thermal contact with the back-iron); using silicon carbide (14:46-50) (wherein the potting material is formed by: mixing silicon carbide particles with a silicon carbide preceramic polymer to form a mixture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the assembly of Hopkins because the slots for the coil and back-iron allow for proper alignment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the assembly of Hopkins during the creation in Piascik because the back-iron will increase the torque. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a thermally conductive silicon carbide mixture.
In reference to Claim 2, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Piascik discloses firing after the precursor layer is added ([0029]) (firing the paste comprises firing the paste after the potting material is inserted into the plurality of slots of the stator).
In reference to Claim 3, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Piascik discloses pre-firing before the precursor is added into the slots ([0029]) (firing the paste comprises firing the paste before the potting material is inserted into the plurality of slots of the stator).
In reference to Claim 4, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Piascik discloses elevated temperatures about 700-850°C ([0022]) (firing the paste comprises firing the paste at a temperature in a range from 600 to 1500°C).
In reference to Claim 15, Piascik discloses creating a stator (Abstract) (forming a stator for a high-power density electric machine), inserting a coil ([0037]); and potting the interior of the housing with an inorganic dielectric filler material ([0037]), creating a precursor layer of a glass-containing paste ([0006]) (diluting the mixture with solvents to form a slurry; drying the slurry to form a paste); layering the paste onto the stack ([0006]) forming the paste into a shape); and firing the laminate stack ([0006]) with elevated temperatures about 700-850°C ([0022]) firing the paste at between 600 and 1500°C to form a ceramic.
Piascik does not disclose inserting the stator coils in the plurality of slots; packing the paste in the plurality of slots of the stator; the stator having a plurality of slots for receiving stator coils and having a back-iron; mixing silicon carbide particles with a silicon carbide preceramic polymer to form a mixture; and the paste in thermal contact with adjacent stator coils and in thermal contact with the back-iron.
Hopkins discloses the coil winding into the slot (19:31-33) (inserting the stator coils in the plurality of slots); maximizing slot fill to reduce loses (16:59-67) (packing the paste in the plurality of slots of the stator); thermal transfer from portions of the stator with potting material (20:24-27) with the back-iron assembly (8:54-58) (the stator having a plurality of slots for receiving stator coils and having a back-iron); using silicon carbide (14:46-50) (mixing silicon carbide particles with a silicon carbide preceramic polymer to form a mixture), the material is thermally conductive to enhance the assembly (15:4-18) (the paste in thermal contact with adjacent stator coils and in thermal contact with the back-iron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the assembly of Hopkins because the slots for the coil and back-iron allow for proper alignment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the assembly of Hopkins during the creation in Piascik because the back-iron will increase the torque. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a thermally conductive silicon carbide mixture.
In reference to Claim 16, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 15, as described above.
Piascik discloses firing after the precursor layer is added ([0029]) (firing the paste comprises firing the paste after packing the paste in the plurality of slots of the stator).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 15, as described above.
Piascik discloses pre-firing before the precursor is added into the slots ([0029]) (firing the paste comprises firing the paste before the paste is inserted into the plurality of slots of the stator).
Claims 5-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piascik, et al. (US 2016/0226323) in view of Hopkins, et al. (US 10,177,631) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Corey, et al. (US 2022/0368198).
In reference to Claim 5, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Modified Piascik does not disclose forming the paste into the shape comprises forming the paste into a wedge shape to fit between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots.
Corey discloses wedges between the coils ([0067]) (forming the paste into the shape comprises forming the paste into a wedge shape to fit between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the wedge shape of Corey for the increase in cooling ability. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the wedge of Corey during the creation in Piascik because the shape assists in cooling. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a properly cooled coil.
In reference to Claim 6, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Corey discloses wedges between the coils ([0067]) (forming the paste into the shape comprises inserting the paste into a wedge-shaped region between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots).
In reference to Claim 7, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Corey discloses wedges between the coils ([0067]) with channels through the wedges for additional cooling ([0066]) (forming the paste into a shape comprises forming the paste into a plurality of wedges, wherein each of the plurality of wedges is approximately a size and a shape of a cavity between stator coils in one of the plurality of slots).
In reference to Claim 18, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 15, as described above.
Modified Piascik does not disclose forming the paste into a wedge shape to fit between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots prior to packing the paste into the plurality of slots of the stator.
Corey discloses wedges between the coils ([0067]) (forming the paste into a wedge shape to fit between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots prior to packing the paste into the plurality of slots of the stator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the wedge shape of Corey for the increase in cooling ability. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the wedge of Corey during the creation in Piascik because the shape assists in cooling. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a properly cooled coil.
In reference to Claim 19, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 15, as described above.
Modified Piascik does not disclose packing the paste in the plurality of slots of the stator comprises inserting the paste into a wedge-shaped region between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots.
Corey discloses wedges between the coils ([0067]) (packing the paste in the plurality of slots of the stator comprises inserting the paste into a wedge-shaped region between stacks of stator coils in the plurality of slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the wedge shape of Corey for the increase in cooling ability. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the wedge of Corey during the creation in Piascik because the shape assists in cooling. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a properly cooled coil.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piascik, et al. (US 2016/0226323) in view of Hopkins, et al. (US 10,177,631) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sherwood, et al. (US 2005/0276961).
In reference to Claim 8, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Modified Piascik does not disclose mixing the silicon carbide particles with the silicon carbide preceramic polymer comprises mixing the silicon carbide particles with Allylhydridopolycarbosilane.
Sherwood discloses a ceramic with allylhydridopolycarbosilane ([0011]) (mixing the silicon carbide particles with the silicon carbide preceramic polymer comprises mixing the silicon carbide particles with Allylhydridopolycarbosilane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the ceramic of Sherwood for the friction properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the ceramic of Sherwood during the creation in Piascik because the preferred friction properties. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a material with the friction properties required.
In reference to Claim 20, modified Piascik discloses the method of Claim 15, as described above.
Modified Piascik does not disclose mixing the silicon carbide particles with the silicon carbide preceramic polymer comprises mixing the silicon carbide particles with Allylhydridopolycarbosilane.
Sherwood discloses a ceramic with allylhydridopolycarbosilane ([0011]) (mixing the silicon carbide particles with the silicon carbide preceramic polymer comprises mixing the silicon carbide particles with Allylhydridopolycarbosilane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of making of Piascik using the ceramic of Sherwood for the friction properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the ceramic of Sherwood during the creation in Piascik because the preferred friction properties. The expectation of success of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a material with the friction properties required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742