DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “As shown throughout the figures of the reference, each end winding has a circular cross-section. Thus, FR 3054745 does not disclose "the connection portions have a pair of parallel side faces" as required by amended claim 1….Thus, FR 3054745 also fails to disclose "the first (N-1)th connection portions are deformed relative to the Nth connection portion such that the pair of parallel side faces of the first to the Nth connection portions are oriented substantially parallel to one another" as required by amended claim 1.”. This argument is not persuasive because having a circular cross-section does not mean that there are no parallel side faces. In fact, opposite sides of a circular cross-section of a wire are substantially parallel to each other.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by FR 3054745.
In re claim 1, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses a stator arrangement for an electric machine (as shown in figure 1), comprising: a stator (10) comprising a stator core with an axial end face (as seen in figures 1-2), and a stator winding which has a number N of phases and is formed sectional from shaped conductors extending through the stator core, and from first to Nth connection portions which at the end face adjoin a part of the conductors, are situated at different angular positions of a circumferential direction and extend in the axial direction, and are configured either to form a star point or to form connections for the phases (as best seen in figure 2), wherein: the connection portions have a pair of parallel side faces, and the first (N-1)th connection portions are deformed relative to the Nth connection portion such that the pair of parallel side faces of the first to the Nth connection portions are oriented substantially parallel to one another (this is shown in figures 2 and 6b); a connection unit for the stator, comprising a number N of contact portions (34), wherein each contact portion has a first wall and a second wall, each contact portion forms a receiving chamber delimited by the first wall and the second wall and designed to encase one of the N connection portions of the stator (as best seen in figure 6a-b), and each contact portion is configured to electrically conductive contact the connection portion, wherein the first and second walls of the N contact portions are oriented parallel to one other; a conductor arrangement which electrically conductively connects the contact portions (as seen in figure 6a), wherein first to the Nth connection portions are each received in the receiving chamber of a contact portion of the connection unit (as seen in figures 2 and 6b).
In re claim 2, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses that the contact portions are configured as recesses of the conductor arrangement (as seen in figure 6a).
In re claim 3, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses that the contact portions each have a guide which is widened relative to a distance between the first wall and the second wall (as seen in figure 6a).
In re claim 4, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses that the contact portions each have a third wall which connects the first wall and the second wall and delimits the receiving chamber (in the same way as shown by the applicant, see figure 6a).
In re claims 5, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses an isolation body (33) which is arranged on the conductor arrangement and comprises openings exposing the contact portions (as best seen in figure 5).
In re claim 7, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses that the first to the Nth connection portions are designed to form a star point (as discussed throughout the disclosure), wherein the stator winding is furthermore formed sectional from (N+1)th to (2N)th connection portions which at the end face adjoin a part of the shaped conductors (any portions meeting these limitations are sections), extend in the axial direction at different angular positions of a circumferential direction (as shown in figures 2-5 and 6b), and are configured to form connections for the phases, wherein the (N+1)th to (2N)th connection portion has a pair of parallel side faces (as shown in figure 6a-b), wherein the (N+1)th to (2N- 1)th connection portions are deformed relative to the (2N)th connection portion (as seen in figure 6a-b; all connection portions are deformed relative to each other) such that the pairs of parallel side faces of the (N+1)th to (2N)th connection portions are oriented substantially parallel to one another.
In re claim 8, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e connection portions, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. twisting around an axis. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claims 12-14, the claimed structural limitations are taught by the prior art as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-10 above. With respect to the method limitation, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 15, Fr 3054745, in figures 1-8, discloses a rotor (a rotor is discussed throughout the specification).
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:
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3054745 in view of Haga (US 2016/0149454).
In re claim 10, Fr 3054745 discloses that the conductor arrangement of the first connection unit electrically conductively connects the contact portions to form a star point. Fr 3054745 does not explicitly show the isolated second unit. Haga however, in figures 1-11, discloses a similar device having a stator arrangement with a second connection unit the conductor arrangement of which comprises N conductor portions which are electrically isolated from one another (33, see figure 6 for best view). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have isolated conductors in one of the units of Fr 3054745 as taught by Haga in order to isolate phases at the ends of the star to form a proper star connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837