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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 11 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 3, 5 and 11, “much” should read --many--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
At line 6, claim 1 refers to “at least one arrangement”. In claim 1, line 9, the claim limitation “the arrangement” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear to which specific arrangement this limitation refers. The limitation “the arrangement” is also present at line 12 of claim 1, and in claims 3 and 11.
At line 6, claim 1 refers to “at least one shaped conductor”. In claim 1, line 9, the claim limitation “the shaped conductor” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear to which specific shaped conductor this limitation refers.
In claim 1, line 11, the claim limitation “the axial direction between the stator core and the arrangement” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claims 3 and 11, the limitation “radially layered” renders the claim indefinite, because the claims do not clarify the location of the layering, i.e. radially layered where and radially with respect to what? Further, claims 3 and 11 are, overall, confusing, as it is unclear how there can be as many shaped conductors as leg portions necessary to fill all the slots of the stator core, given that each shaped conductor has two leg portions, i.e., the number of leg portions is twice the number of shaped conductors.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “180°”, and the claim also recites “120°” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, and further recited “90°” which is the narrowest statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “at most half”, and the claim also recites “at most a third” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, and further recited “at most a quarter” which is the narrowest statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, regarding claim 5, the phrases "preferably" and “particularly preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, claim 5 is, overall, confusing, as it is unclear how there can be as many shaped conductors as leg portions, given that each shaped conductor has two leg portions, i.e., the number of leg portions is twice the number of shaped conductors.
Still further, in claim 5, the claim refers to both “the slots” and “a respective slot”, making it unclear which slot or slots are filled.
Also, the term “respective” (claims 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, and 17-20) requires a one-to-one correspondence with another element, but no such element is mentioned.
In claim 6, the limitation “the slot” does not clearly identify which particular slot is intended.
In claim 6, the limitation “the skew” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether it refers to slot skew or leg portion skew.
In claim 7, last two lines, the limitation “the radial direction” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim does not clearly associate the radial direction with any of the recited structural elements. Radial direction of what?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, without broadening the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729