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 cylinder, rod shaft, the elevation block, the guide groove, and housing having the rod shaft having a guide groove must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Examples include but are not limited too
Claim 13 recites both “a lead pin” and “the lead pins”, these should not be both plural and singular.
Claim 3 “a cutting unit positioned under” should read “a cutting unit is positioned under”
Claim 3 “the cut hairpins” should read “the hairpins after they have been cut”
Claim 6 “along rails when ends” should read “”along rails after the ends” as they do not happen simultaneously
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a fixing unit” “an alignment jig” in claim 1, “a clamping unit” in claim 2 “a cutting unit” “a welding unit” in claim 3 “a visual examination unit” in claim 4. These are being interpreted to mean “a system to hold a stator” “a system used to move a stator” “a system containing a clamp” “a system containing a cutter” “a laser” “a camera”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11: “a straight motion” is mentioned in lines 3 and 5. It is unclear as to whether or not this is the same straight motion
Claim 14: “a first rotator” is unclear as “a rotator” is already mentioned in a prior claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 102400460B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a laser integrated machining system for a stator assembly (1, fig 1), the laser integrated machining system comprising: a frame including rails (3, fig 2) extending a predetermined length; a fixing unit (31, fig 2) seated on the rails, reciprocating in a longitudinal direction of the rails (they can move along the longitudinal direction between each set of rails 3), and configured to fix a stator assembly (1, fig 10) having a large number of hairpins (11, fig 1) inserted therein; and an alignment jig (2, fig 2) including a rotator (321, fig 3) configured to rotate the fixed stator assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the alignment jig further includes a clamping unit (221, fig 5) configured to clamp the large number of hairpins in pairs (11, fig 7), and the alignment jig is reciprocated with the large number of hairpins clamped (this represents intended use of the system, the machine is capable of reciprocating the jig and thus meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein a cutting unit (314, fig 11) positioned under the alignment jig and configured to cut the hairpins and a welding unit (341, fig 3) configured to weld the cut hairpins are further fixedly installed on the frame.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein a vision examination unit (331, fig 3) is further provided on the frame between the cutting unit and the welding unit.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the cutting unit includes: a cutting assembly (314, fig 13) being operated to cut ends of the hairpins clamped by the clamping unit; and an elevation assembly (373, fig 13) configured to move the cutting assembly up and down.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the alignment jig is rotated by the rotator to turn upside down the stator assembly (inverters 321 and 381 serve to fulfill this function, fig 3) and then moved toward the welding unit along the rails when ends of the hairpins are cut by the cutting assembly (after they’re cut they get moved along the rails to the next section being the inspection station).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a carrying rail (3, fig 3) extending a predetermined length on the frame and a moving jig assembly (2, fig 3) mounted on the carrying rail and reciprocating in a longitudinal direction of the carrying rail, and further comprising a clamp (22, 23, fig 5 and 6) installed on the moving jig assembly and configured to hold the stator assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the moving jig assembly includes two moving jig assemblies (311 and 371, fig 2) configured to hold stator assemblies before and after machining, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses wherein the alignment jig further includes a jig plate (21, fig 5) having a stator through-hole (224, fig 5) in which a lower end of the stator assembly is partially inserted (fig 4, the stator extends both above and below the plate), and a rail block (212, fig 5) moving along the rails.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses wherein the fixing unit includes: a pressing motor (225, fig 6) configured to generate power for a straight motion (the pressing motor pushes on the pressing blocks to create a straight motion on the pressing blocks); and a pressing block (231, fig 6) connected to the pressing motor to be provided with power for a straight motion from the pressing motor (the pressing blocks get pushed straight in via the motor and 2342, fig 6), and configured to selectively come in surface contact with an outer surface of the stator assembly (the pressing blocks are used to hold the stator in place).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the rotator includes: a pair of rotary plates (3211, one on each side of the jig, fig 2) coupled to both sides of the jig plate, respectively, and rotatably installed on the rail block (fig 2, the rotators connect to the rail blocks); and a rotation motor (3212, fig 2) configured to rotate the rotary plates.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses wherein the clamping unit includes: a first plate (222, fig 8, the plurality of shaft support blocks form a plate shape when inserted) having first holes that are formed therethrough and in which the hairpins are inserted; a second plate (213, fig 8) disposed on a bottom of the first plate and having second holes that are formed therethrough and in which the hairpins passing through the first holes are inserted; a first rotator (2211, fig 8) configured to rotate the first plate in a first direction; and a second rotator (224, fig 8) configured to rotate the second plate in a second direction.
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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yu (KR20220153225A).
Regarding claim 9, Kim Does not disclose wherein the clamp includes: a cylinder configured to drive a rod shaft configured to move up and down; a housing having the rod shaft inserted therein and having a guide groove formed outward on a side thereof; an elevation block coupled to a first end of the rod shaft to integrally move with the rod shaft; and a pressing block coupled to a side of the elevation block and being guided to slide in the guide groove by up-down movement of the elevation block.
Yu teaches a clamping system for a stator machining system comprising a clamp (100, fig 6) including: a cylinder (235, fig 6) configured to drive a rod shaft (237, fig 6); a housing (270, fig 6) having the rod shaft inserted therein and having a guide groove (271, fig 8) formed outward on a side thereof; an elevation block (331, fig 7) coupled to a first end of the rod shaft to integrally move with the rod shaft; and a pressing block (250, fig 6) coupled to a side of the elevation block and being guided to slide in the guide groove by up-down movement of the elevation block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping system disclosed by Kim by using the clamping system of Yu. Doing so would allow for better aligning of the hairpins increasing stator quality (page 11, par 3-5), as suggested by Yu.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee (KR 20210071577A).
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not disclose wherein the cutting assembly includes: cutter bodies having a lead pin fastened to a lower end thereof and having a cutter mounted on a side thereof; a guide housing having the cutter bodies seated thereon, having pin movement holes in which the lead pins are inserted, and having body insertion grooves configured to guide the inserted cutter bodies toward the hairpins; a cam follower having a predetermined radius of curvature to convert a rotation motion into a straight motion, and having pin guide grooves in which the lead pins are inserted and that have a predetermined radius of curvature; and a cam follower rotator configured to rotate the cam follower.
Lee teaches a cutter unit (100, fig 12) used to cut hairpins of an electric stator, wherein the cutting assembly includes: cutter bodies (51, fig 12) having a lead pin (55, fig 12) fastened to a lower end thereof and having a cutter (53, fig 11b) mounted on a side thereof; a guide housing (60, fig 12) having the cutter bodies seated thereon, having pin movement holes (50, fig 6) in which the lead pins are inserted, and having body insertion grooves (37, fig 4) configured to guide the inserted cutter bodies toward the hairpins; a cam (81, fig 7) follower having a predetermined radius of curvature (this was determined as it was constructed as the radius of curvature is based on its dimensions) to convert a rotation motion into a straight motion, and having pin guide grooves (89, fig 7) in which the lead pins are inserted and that have a predetermined radius of curvature; and a cam follower rotator (87, fig 12) configured to rotate the cam follower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting system disclosed by Kim by using the cutting system of Lee. Doing so would increase wind length uniformity while reducing occurrence of burrs (page 8, last paragraph), as suggested by Lee.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhang (CN 115156712A).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses wherein the hairpins are welded by a laser (page 5, par. 3).
Kim does not disclose the welding unit further includes a lens configured to adjust a focus of the laser that is emitted.
Zhang teaches a welding device (60, fig 10) which uses a laser (61, fig 10) to weld an electric motor, wherein the welding unit comprises a lens (65, fig 10) configured to adjust a focus of the laser that is emitted (a lens by its nature is configured to adjust the focus of a laser as it refracts the light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser welder disclosed by Kim by a lens based on the teaching of Zhang. Doing so would allow the laser beam to be controlled to focus on a whole field rather than just a point (page 10, par 3), as suggested by Zhang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights