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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to not showing claimed features of claims 1 and 8-9. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 8 and canceled claim 9, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claims 1-10 were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the claims to correct the informalities, however claims 2-8 and 10 remain objected to due to a remaining informality.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §112:
Claims 1-10 were rejected as being indefinite. The Applicant amended claim 1 to correct the indefiniteness, therefore the rejections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-10 were rejected as being obvious over Yaskawa in view of Toyota ‘661. Claim 2 was rejected as being obvious over Yaskawa in view of Toyota ‘661 and Toyota ‘225. Claims 4 and 7 were rejected as being obvious over Yaskawa in view of Toyota ‘661 and Honda. The Applicant amended claim 1 and canceled claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 7/14/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0294816 to Ren et al.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 the phrase “wherein the coil includes a plurality of housing portions disposed in the slots” does not appear to make sense. The portion of the coil disposed in the slots is not a housing and should not be referred to as such. A more appropriate claim limitation would be “wherein the coil includes a plurality of coil portions disposed in the slots.”
In claims 2-8 and 10 the phrase “A dynamo-electric machine” should instead be “The dynamo-electric machine.”
Appropriate correction is required
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0294816 to Ren et al. (hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Ren teaches a dynamo-electric machine (FIG. 1, 10) comprising:
a stator core (FIG. 1, 1) with a plurality of slots (FIG. 1, 3), and
a coil (FIG. 1, 5) including a plurality of conductors covered with an insulating material (FIG. 5, 7),
wherein the coil includes a plurality of coil portions disposed in the slots (FIG. 3; 3, 5) and a plurality of coil end portions disposed outside of the slots (FIG. 3, 6),
wherein the coil end portions have a bent shape and are arranged so that bent portions of the coil end portions are shifted between different phases to form an intersecting portion (Paragraph [0033]-[0036]), and
wherein an insulating material (FIG. 5, 7) is disposed on a surface of the conductors on a same side between the different phases only on a side of the bent shape corresponding to the intersecting portion and only on a surface corresponding to the intersecting portion (Paragraph [0037]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1, wherein each of the conductors is a round wire (FIG. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 5, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1, wherein a length of said insulating material is longer than a length of the surface of the conductors (FIG. 5, 8).
Regarding claim 6, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 5, wherein the insulating material is attached to only one surface of said conductors (Paragraph [0033]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Japanese Patent No. 2012-157225 to Toyota Motor Corp (hereinafter Toyota ‘225; provided by Applicant on 8/7/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1.
Ren does not teach each of the conductors being a flat rectangular wire.
However, Toyota ‘225 teaches conductors being flat rectangular wires (FIG. 4, 224).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamo-electric machine of Ren with the flat rectangular wires of Toyota ‘225 as the rectangular wire can have a higher slot fill factor than round wire.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Japanese Patent No. 2004-112974 to Fanuc Ltd (hereinafter Fanuc; provided by Applicant on 8/7/2023).
Regarding claim 4, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1.
Ren does not teach a length of said insulating material being the same as a length of the surface of the conductors
However, Fanuc teaches an insulating material (FIG. 3, 11) for a conductor having the same length as the surface of the conductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamo-electric machine of Ren with the insulating material length of Fanuc to use less insulating material and have a more efficient production cost of the machine.
Regarding claim 7, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1.
Ren does not teach the insulating materials being further attached to a portion of the conductor in a direction of thickness.
However, Fanuc teaches an insulating material (FIG. 3, 11) being attached to a portion of a conductor (FIG. 3, 2) in a direction of thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamo-electric machine of Ren with the insulating material coverage of Fanuc to further insulating the coil ends of the machine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Japanese Patent No. 2016-187245 to Honda Motor Co Ltd (hereinafter Honda; provided by Applicant on 8/7/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1.
Ren does not teach the coil being connected in the storage.
However, Honda teaches a coil (FIG. 1; 11, 12) being connected (FIG. 1, 10) in a stator core (FIG. 1, 21)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamo-electric machine of Ren with the connection of Honda as it provides a more physically and electrically secure connection for the coils (Paragraph [0006]-[0007]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Japanese Patent No. 2008-271661 to Toyota Motor Corp (hereinafter Toyota ‘661; provided by Applicant on 8/7/2023).
Regarding claim 10, Ren teaches the dynamo-electric machine according to claim 1.
Ren does not teach the conductors being coated with enamel.
However, Toyota’ 661 teaches conductors being coated with enamel (FIG. 3, 32; Paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamo-electric machine of Ren with the enamel coated conductor wire of Toyota ‘661 as it further protects and electrically insulates the coil and ensures proper operation of the dynamo-electric machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2005-312222 to Yaskawa discloses an insulating material between coil ends of a machine.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834