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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In Claim 1, “an installation step” (line 3), “a joining step” (line 5), “a setting step” (line 8), and a radiation step” (line 11).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
In this case, for each recitation of “step”, what follows are sufficient acts to entirely perform the recited function. For example, “an installation step” recites an act of “installing coil pieces with a rectangular cross section for a stator coil in a stator core”, which is complete process step. The same can be said for the other remaining recitations of “step”.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claims 3 and 4, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1 through 4 and 8 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2022/0173629 to Kikawada et al (hereinafter “Kikawada”) in view of U.S. Publication to Hess et al (hereinafter “Hess”).
Claim 1: Kikawada discloses a method for manufacturing a stator (e.g. 2, Fig. 1) for a rotating electrical machine (e.g. 1), the method comprising:
an installation step of installing coil pieces (e.g. 51, 52, 53, Fig. 2A) with a rectangular cross section (in Fig. 2B) for a stator coil (e.g. 5) in a stator core (e.g. 4, Fig. 1); and
a joining step of joining ends of the coil pieces by laser welding after the installation step, wherein the joining step includes:
a setting step of bringing the ends into contact with each other in a radial direction (e.g. R axis, Fig. 2A) in such a manner that the ends cross over each other in an X-shape (e.g. directions D21, D22, Fig. 2A, prior to cutting, at 51B3, 52B3) as viewed in the radial direction, and
a radiation step of applying a laser beam in an axial direction toward a C-shaped side (upper part of 50 formed by 51, 52), as viewed in the radial direction, of a contact surface (e.g. at WL, Fig. 6) between the ends after the setting step, and
part of the C-shaped side and part of an axially outer non-contact surface (e.g. 55, Fig. 3) that is continuous with the contact surface between the ends are melted in the radiation step (e.g. ¶ [0041]).
Claim 2: Kikawada discloses the method for manufacturing a stator for a rotating electrical machine according to claim 1, wherein a radiation width (e.g. from WP to A, Fig. 6) of the laser beam includes the C-shaped side, the non-contact surface, and the contact surface as viewed in a direction (e.g. Z-axis, Fig. 6) parallel to the contact surface.
Claims 3 and 8: Kikawada discloses the method for manufacturing a stator for a rotating electrical machine according claim 1, wherein the radiation step is performed in such a manner that opposite outer surfaces (e.g. horizonal surfaces of 51b and 52b, outside of A, Fig. 6) of the ends that are parallel to the contact surface (e.g. at WL) are not irradiated with the laser beam.
Claims 4, 9, 10 and 11: Kikawada discloses the method for manufacturing a stator for a rotating electrical machine according to claim 3, [elements emphasized as follows are shown in a partial view of Kikawada’s Figure 2A];
wherein the end of the coil piece includes an end face on an axially outer side and a tip end face that are continuous with each other and form a substantially right angle as viewed in the radial direction (e.g. R axis, in Fig. 2A), and
in the setting step, the ends are crossed over each other in the X-shape in such a manner that the entire tip end face of one of the ends is located above the end face on the axially outer side of the other end as viewed in the radial direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kikawada discloses substantially all of the limitations of the claimed manufacturing method except that the laser beam has a wavelength of 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less.
Hess teaches that using a laser beam to weld ends of coil pieces (e.g. 10, 12, Fig. 1) can done with a wavelength less than 0.6 µm, e.g. 0.550 µm, 0.425 µm, etc., for a whole host of benefits. Such benefits include, but are not limited to, a more stable and controllable welding process, more uniform melting of parts or material of the coil pieces, improved absorption of material, etc. (e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0020], [0023]).
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 beam of Kikawada by utilizing the wavelengths taught by Hess, for anyone of, or all, of the associated benefits taught by Hess.
Claims 5 through 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikawada in view of Hess, as applied to Claims 1, 3 and 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2016/0016261 to Mudd (hereinafter “Mudd”).
Kikawada, as modified by Hess, disclose the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claims 1, 3 and 4.
Regarding Claim 6, Kikawada further discloses wherein the radiation step includes a first radiation step of irradiating one side [to the left of WP, Fig. 6] of the C-shaped side with respect to a point of intersection of the X-shape with the laser beam, and
a second radiation step of irradiating the other side [to the right of WP, Fig. 6] of the C-shaped side with respect to the point of intersection of the X-shape with the laser beam.
The modified Kikawada method does not mention a laser oscillator where the laser generates pulse oscillation.
Mudd discloses that it is well-known to use a laser oscillator (e.g. Fig. 4) wherein a laser beam (e.g. 56, Fig. 5) is generated for each pulse oscillation in the laser oscillator, and in a radiation step, a set of ends of pieces (e.g. 12, 14) are joined by two or more of the pulse oscillations (e.g. ¶¶ [0053], [0054]).
Mudd further teaches a first radiation step of irradiating one side (e.g. A, Figs. 29-31) of a shaped side with respect to a point of intersection with the laser beam with one pulse oscillation; and a second radiation step of irradiating the other side (e.g. B, Figs. 29-31) of the shaped side with respect to the point of intersection with the laser beam by another pulse oscillation.
The benefit of using pulses allows an equal amount of material to be melted during welding and a reduction in welding time (e.g. ¶ [0009]).
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 of Kikawada by adding a laser oscillator with pulses in the manner taught by Mudd, for the benefits of allowing an equal amount of material to be melted during welding and a reduction in welding time.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Kikawada method further discloses each of a movement range of the radiation position of the laser beam in the first radiation step and a movement range of the radiation position of the laser beam in the second radiation step includes the point of intersection of the X-shape (e.g. Fig. 6 of Kikawada).
The modified Kikawada method does not teach that the first radiation step includes linearly changing a radiation position of the laser beam in a direction along the contact surface, and the second radiation step includes linearly changing the radiation position of the laser beam in the direction along the contact surface.
In Figures 5 and 6 of Mudd, Mudd discloses that a first radiation step can include linearly changing a radiation position of the laser beam in a [horizontal] direction (at one 55) along the [vertical] contact surface between two pieces (e.g. 12, 14), and the second radiation step can include linearly changing the radiation position of the laser beam in the [horizontal] direction (at another 55) along the contact surface (e.g. ¶ [0053]). Such a pattern by Mudd provides for a symmetrical zone of material being melted along the contact surface for joining the two pieces (e.g. ¶ [0054]).
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 first and second radiation steps of Kikawada by including linearly changing of radiation positions of the laser beam in each of the first and second steps, as taught by Mudd, to provide for a symmetrical zone of material being melted along the contact surface in joining the ends of coil pieces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2020-40103, discloses a process of making a stator by joining ends (e.g. 25a, Fig. 6) of coil pieces (e.g. 25) by laser welding (see SOLUTION).
b) Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Kuehl, A., entitled "Effects of Insulation Residues on the Contacting Process of Copper Flat Wire Connections", discloses laser welding coil pieces for a motor (e.g. Fig. 5, see entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896