DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 April 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 17 June 2026 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-15, 22 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase et al. (US 6,861,773) in view of Nagano et al. (US 7,269,890).
Regarding claim 1, Iwase generally teaches the invention of a rotating electromechanical apparatus, comprising a ring-cylindrical (i) ironless stator, wherein the ring-cylindrical stator comprises a ring cylindrical casing (cylindrical member) 9 having a (ii) cylindrical inner surface (not numbered; Fig.5), wherein the ring cylindrical casing 9 comprises a helical lamination stack of a helically wound strip of magnetically permeable material 9a, having multiple turns (c.5:5-20; Fig.5), wherein the strip 9a comprises two main surfaces and two side surfaces (not numbered; formed by quadrangular sectional shape of magnetic material strip 9a, c.5:13-14), wherein at least one of the two main surfaces comprise an insulation coating (c.5:5-9; Fig.5),
wherein (iii) the ring cylindrical casing further comprises a support cylinder (supporter) 3 arranged coaxially with the helical lamination stack (c.3:33-46),
wherein (iv) the support cylinder 3 is arranged next to an inner radial surface of the helical lamination stack (c.4:64-c.5:4; Figs.4A-4B),
wherein (v) a permanent connection is formed between the support cylinder 3 and the helical lamination stack, wherein the permanent connection is a chemical fit connection (i.e., supporter 3 fixed to inner peripheral face of cylindrical member/ring cylindrical casing/helical lamination stack 9 by adhesive, c.3:61-64; c.8:38-40), and
wherein the ring-cylindrical stator further comprises a winding (coil) 2 (Figs.4A-4B).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
355
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
800
207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Iwase differs only in that the ring-cylindrical stator winding is not a “continuous hairpin winding having at least two layers, wherein the continuous hairpin winding comprises wires which are hairpin-shaped and provide straight wire segments which run in parallel to a cylinder axis of the continuous hairpin winding, the cylinder axis being coaxial with a rotational axis of the rotor, and wherein next to a first straight segment, on one or both ends of the first straight segment, the wire is folded and bent such that a subsequent second straight segment runs anti-parallel at a distance to the first straight segment.”
But, Nagano teaches a slotless electric machine and manufacture of coils therefor comprising a slotless stator 54 and a “continuous hairpin winding” (coil) 55 (Fig.6), i.e., the coil is made up of three phase coils 73(u)-73(w) each comprising hairpin wire sections 65, 66 wound continuously with at least two layers (c.8:29-34; Figs.18-20). Instead of the lozenge-shape shown in Fig.18, Nagano teaches each turn of the coil may have a hexagonal shape (c.9:22-26). Nagano’s hexagonal-shaped, continuous hairpin winding comprise “straight wire segments which run in parallel to a cylinder axis of the continuous hairpin winding, the cylinder axis being coaxial with a rotational axis of the rotor, and wherein next to a first straight segment, on one or both ends of the first straight segment, the wire is folded and bent such that a subsequent second straight segment runs anti-parallel at a distance to the first straight segment.” 1 Nagano’s continuous hairpin winding provides a rotary electric machine which is both compact and efficient while capable of providing a large output and reduces loss in a high speed range to a significant extent without involving any significant increase in copper loss (c.2:47-58).
PNG
media_image4.png
696
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the winding of Iwase as a “continuous hairpin winding” having at least two layers since Nagano teaches this would have provided a rotary electric machine which is both compact and efficient while capable of providing a large output and reduced loss in a high speed range to a significant extent without involving any significant increase in copper loss.
Regarding claim 2, Iwase (abstract) and Nagano (abstract) both teach a rotor, which comprises permanent magnets.
Regarding claim 3, the magnetically permeable material of the strip 9a of Iwase is an iron alloy (i.e., soft magnetic material of iron; c.5:12). Similarly, Nagano teaches a stator iron core.
Regarding claim 4, Iwase’s strip of magnetically permeable material 9a has a constant thickness and width (Fig.5).
Regarding claim 7, a product-by-process claim, per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the final product of the combination results in the claimed “multiple-geared” [sic] (i.e., multiple-stacked) helical lamination stack. Even though Iwase and Nagano use a single strip instead of plural strips, the strip of each is arranged so that each layer is parallel and coaxial with adjacent layers and at the same pitch angle, and the neighboring main surfaces of the strip are arranged with negligible gaps between each layer such that a full-surface hollow cylinder of magnetically permeable material is formed.
Regarding claim 8, Iwase’s neighboring main surfaces of the strip 9a are arranged with negligible gaps between each other such that a full-surface hollow cylinder of magnetically permeable material is formed (Fig.5).
Regarding claim 9, Iwase’s helical lamination stack comprises a continuous helically wound strip of magnetically permeable material 9a having multiple turns (c.5:5-20; Fig.5)
Regarding claim 10, Iwase and Nagano do not teach the ring cylindrical casing comprises a plurality of the helical lamination stacks which are arranged coaxially next to each other along the cylinder axis of the ring cylindrical casing. But, simply dividing Iwase’s cylindrical member 9 into two members would have involved ordinary skill before the effective filing date since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 13, Iwase and Nagano both teach a motor.
Regarding product-by-process claim 14, Iwase teaches bending a strip of magnetically permeable material 9a around an axis of rotation multiple times to form a helical lamination stack (cylindrical member) 9, wherein the strip comprises two main surfaces and two side surfaces, wherein at least one of the two main surfaces comprises an insulation coating (c.5:5-20; Fig.5).2
Regarding product-by-process claim 15, Iwase teaches forming a permanent connection between the helical lamination stack (cylindrical member) 9 and a support cylinder 3, which is arranged coaxially with the helical lamination stack, thereby forming the ring cylindrical casing (i.e., supporter 3 is fixed to inner peripheral face of cylindrical member/ring cylindrical casing/helical lamination stack 9 by adhesive, c.3:61-64; c.8:38-40).
Regarding product-by-process claim 22, Iwase teaches the helical lamination stack (cylindrical member) 9 is “glued” on the support cylinder 3 (i.e., supporter 3 fixed to inner peripheral face of cylindrical member/ring cylindrical casing/helical lamination stack 9 by adhesive, c.3:61-64; c.8:38-40).
Regarding claim 24, Iwase’s ring cylindrical casing (i.e., cylindrical member 9) has a substantially cylindrical outer surface (c.5:5-9; Fig.5).
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-15, 22 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 7,9,77840) in view of Steiner (US 5,396,138) and Schultz et al. (US 4,954,739).
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches a rotating electromechanical apparatus, comprising a ring-cylindrical (i) ironless stator, wherein the ring-cylindrical stator comprises a ring cylindrical casing (core) 10 having a (ii) cylindrical inner surface (not numbered; Figs.3-4), wherein the ring cylindrical casing 10 comprises a…lamination stack of a…magnetically permeable material (i.e., core 10 is formed by stacking together a number of stamped laminations of electrical steel; c.4:24-25)…, wherein the stack comprises two main surfaces and two side surfaces (Fig.2)…, the ring-cylindrical stator further comprises a continuous hairpin winding 20 having at least two layers (i.e., stator magnet wire 22 wound about a bracket to form a phase coil 24 deformed into flat double layer web 26; abstract; c.3:66-67; c.7:13-16; Figs.6-7), wherein the continuous hairpin winding 20 comprises (magnet) wires 22 which are hairpin-shaped and provide straight wire segments which run in parallel to a cylinder axis of the continuous hairpin winding (i.e., parallel portions of phase windings 27 wound about bracket), the cylinder axis being coaxial with a rotational axis of the rotor (c.3:66-67; c.7:13-16; Figs.6-7), and
wherein next to a first straight segment, on one or both ends of the first straight segment, the wire is folded and bent such that a subsequent second straight segment runs anti-parallel at a distance to the first straight segment (inherent to phase windings 27 wound about a bracket to form hollow coil 24 which is then deformed into flat double layer web 26; c.3:66-67; c.7:13-16; Figs.6-7).
PNG
media_image5.png
367
246
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
289
458
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chu differs in that the ring cylindrical casing (core/lamination stack) 10 does not comprise: 1) a helical stack of a helically wound strip of magnetically permeable material, having multiple turns and an insulation coating on at least one of the two main surfaces of the strip; and 2) “a support cylinder arranged coaxially with the helical lamination stack, wherein (iv) the support cylinder is arranged next to an inner radial surface of the helical lamination stack, wherein (v) a permanent connection is formed between the support cylinder and the helical lamination stack, wherein the permanent connection is a chemical fit connection.”
But, regarding (1), Steiner teaches a rotating electromechanical apparatus comprising a ring-cylindrical (i) ironless stator (coiled stator core) 10, wherein the ring-cylindrical stator 10 comprises a ring cylindrical casing 10 having a (ii) cylindrical inner surface (not numbered), wherein the ring cylindrical casing 10 comprises a helical lamination stack of a helically wound strip of magnetically permeable material having multiple turns (i.e., a closely wound helical coil of ferromagnetic wire; abstract; c.2:52-54; c.3:54-60; Fig.3), wherein the strip comprises two main surfaces (not numbered) and two side surfaces (not numbered; i.e., rectangular cross-section wire; c.1:41-42; c.3:59-60), and wherein at least one of the two main surfaces comprises an insulation coating (e.g., electrical insulation or alumina coating; c.1:50-52; c.3:61-62; c.4:3-5). In contrast to stamped laminations, Steiner’s helically-wound core reduces waste and improves production (c.1:11-16) and the insulation coating provides electrical insulation and chemical inertness (c.3:61-c.4:9).
PNG
media_image7.png
364
861
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to make Chu’s core lamination stack from a helically wound strip with an insulation coating on at least one of the two main surfaces of the strip since Steiner teaches this would have reduced waste, improved production and provided a core with electrical insulation and chemical inertness.
Regarding (2), Schultz teaches a stator for an electric motor, the stator comprising a ring-cylindrical ironless stator including a lamination stack (outer back iron comprising laminated silicon steel) 30 (c.4:34-36) and a support cylinder (i.e., impregnated ceramic-filled epoxy resin that encapsulates winding 40; c.3:7-10; c.3:38-40) arranged coaxially with the lamination stack, wherein the support cylinder is arranged next to an inner radial surface of the lamination stack 30, wherein a permanent connection is formed between the support cylinder and the lamination stack 30, wherein the permanent connection is a chemical fit connection (i.e., when the winding 40 is in place, it is impregnated with a suitable resin material to provide a rigid winding structure bonded to the back iron and housing of the stator shell; c.5:25-41; Fig.3). Schultz’s support cylinder comprising the impregnated ceramic-filled epoxy resin encapsulates winding 40 properly secures the winding within the surrounding back iron cylindrical shell that provides the flux return path, thus enabling motors without danger of demagnetization and with significantly increased horsepower and continuous torque for a given size and weight (c.2:39-57 & c.2:65-68).
PNG
media_image8.png
656
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to further provide the ring cylindrical casing of Chu and Steiner with a support cylinder arranged coaxially with the helical lamination stack, wherein the support cylinder is arranged next to an inner radial surface of the helical lamination stack, wherein a permanent connection is formed between the support cylinder and the helical lamination stack, wherein the permanent connection is a chemical fit connection, since Schultz teaches this would have properly secured the winding within the surrounding back iron cylindrical shell, thus removing the danger of demagnetization and significantly increasing horsepower and continuous torque.
Regarding claim 2, Chu teaches the rotating electromechanical apparatus includes a permanent magnet rotor 14 (Fig.1). Similarly, Steiner & Schultz also teaches the rotating electromechanical apparatus includes a permanent magnet rotor. Regarding claim 3,Chu’s magnetically permeable material (electrical steel) is inherently ferromagnetic and comprises “iron alloy”. Similarly, Steiner’s magnetically permeable material of the strip (wire) is ferromagnetic (abstract; c.1:24-25). A ferromagnetic material encompasses “iron alloy”.
Regarding claim 4, Steiner’s strip of magnetically permeable material has a constant thickness and width (intrinsic to rectangular cross-section; c.1:41-42).
Regarding claim 7, a product-by-process claim, it is noted 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, even though Steiner’s helical lamination stack is wound from a single strip of magnetically permeable material, not plural strips arranged parallel and coaxial to one another, Steiner’s helical lamination stack has the same structure as a “multiple-geared helical lamination stack” formed from plural strips of material.
Regarding claim 8, Steiner intrinsically teaches neighboring main surfaces of the strip (i.e., wire) are “arranged with negligible gaps between each other such that a full-surface hollow cylinder of magnetically permeable material is formed” since the coiled stator core 10 is formed by closely coiling a continuous wire of ferromagnetic wire into a cylindrical form (c.2:52-54; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 9, Steiner’s helical lamination stack 10 comprises a continuous helically wound strip of magnetically permeable (ferromagnetic) material having multiple turns (c.2:22-26; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, while none of Chu, Steiner or Schultz teaches the ring cylindrical casing is a plurality of helical lamination stacks arranged co-axially next to each other, this would have been an obvious design matter since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 13, Chu teaches a slotless motor, as do Steiner and Schultz.
Regarding claim 14, a product-by-process claim, Steiner teaches at least one of the two main surfaces comprises an insulation coating (c.1:50-52; c.3:61-62; c.4:3-5).3
Regarding claim 15, a product-by-process claim, Schultz teaches a “permanent connection” [sic] formed between the support cylinder comprising the impregnated ceramic-filled epoxy resin that encapsulates winding 40 arranged co-axially with the lamination stack 30, thereby forming the ring cylindrical casing (i.e., when the winding 40 is in place, it is impregnated with a suitable resin material to provide a rigid winding structure bonded to the back iron and housing of the stator shell; c.5:25-41; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 22, a product-by-process claim, Schultz’s impregnation of the support cylinder onto the helical lamination stack with the resin encompasses a “gluing” process.
Regarding claim 24, Chu’s ring cylindrical casing has a substantially cylindrical outer surface (Fig.1), as do Steiner’s (Fig.2) and Schultz’s (Fig.3).
Claims 5 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz as applied to claim 4, further in view of Johnston et al. (US 9,214,845).
Regarding claim 5, none of the combinations teaches the strip of magnetically permeable material is between 0.1 mm and 0.5mm thick, and/or wherein the strip of magnetically permeable material is between 2 mm and 10 mm wide.
But, Johnston teaches the thickness of the coil of electrical steel used in helical winding of stator cores is typically 0.50 mm thick but may vary from 0.35 to 1.00 mm (c.1:6-15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use a strip of magnetically permeable material between 0.1 mm and 0.5mm thick in Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz since Johnston teaches an overlapping thickness of 0.35 to 1.00 mm is typically used in helically-wound stator cores. Prior art teaching a range overlapping the claimed range anticipates if the prior art discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Regarding claim 17, Johnston teaches the thickness of the strip of magnetically permeable material may vary from 0.35 to 1.00 mm. Prior art teaching a range overlapping the claimed range anticipates if the prior art discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Claims 6 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kaido et al. (JP 2008-036671).
Regarding claim 6, the combinations teach the claimed apparatus including an insulation coating on the strip of magnetically permeable material, but none teaches the thickness of the insulation coating is between 1μm and 10 μm, specifically.
But, Kaido teaches a laminated electrical steel sheet used as laminated iron cores for various electromagnetic devices including electric motors comprising a strip of magnetically permeable material 0.35 mm thick with an insulating coating formed on the surface thereof, the insulation coating having a thickness of 2 μm or more and 1% or less of the plate thickness, e.g., from 1.5 μm to 4 μm, to prevent contact between the laminations, unnecessary current flows and noise (English machine translation, ¶[0003]-¶[0006], ¶[0032]-¶[0033]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the insulation coating of Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz with a thickness of between 1.5μm and 10 μm since Kaido teaches a range of 1.5μm to 4μm in thickness would have prevented contact between the laminations, unnecessary current flows and noise.
Regarding claims 18-19, Kaido teaches a specific insulation coating thickness of between 1.5μm to 4μm, overlapping the claimed ranges. Prior art teaching a range overlapping the claimed range anticipates if the prior art discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz as applied to claim 4, further in view of Kaido and Krauth (US 9,236,783).
Regarding claim 20, the combinations teach the claimed apparatus including an insulation coating on the strip of magnetically permeable material, but none teaches that the strip of magnetically permeable material is between 0.1 mm and 0.5 mm thick, the strip of magnetically permeable material is between 2 mm and 10 mm wide, and the insulation coating is between 1μm and 10 μm, specifically.
But, with regard to the first and third features, Kaido teaches a laminated electrical steel sheet used as laminated iron cores for various electromagnetic devices including electric motors comprising a strip of magnetically permeable material 0.35 mm thick with an insulating coating formed on the surface thereof, the insulation coating having a thickness of 2 μm or more and 1% or less of the plate thickness, e.g., from 1.5 μm to 4 μm, to prevent contact between the laminations, unnecessary current flows and noise (English machine translation, ¶[0003]-¶[0006], ¶[0032]-¶[0033]).
It would have been obvious to provide Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz with a strip thickness of between 0.1 mm and 0.5 mm thick since Kaido teaches a thickness within this range was suitable for laminated cores of electric motors. Per MPEP 2132.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the insulation coating of Iwase & Nagano or Hibino, Steiner & Wedman with a thickness of between 1.5μm and 10 μm since Kaido teaches a range of 1.5μm to 4μm in thickness would have prevented contact between the laminations, unnecessary current flows and noise.
Regarding the second feature, Krauth teaches an electric machine comprising a laminated core made from magnetically permeable material between 2 mm and 10 mm wide (i.e., 4 mm; c.1:43-46; Fig.1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz with a strip width of between 2 mm and 10 mm wide since Krauth teaches a width within the range would have been suitable for a laminated electric machine core. Per MPEP 2132.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz as applied to claim 1, further in view of Koopmans et al. (US Pat.Pub.2019/0151926).
Regarding product-by-process claim 23, insofar as the structure is understood, as noted above each combination teaches an insulation coating on the strip of magnetically permeable material coiled helically to form the ironless stator. See Iwase c.5:5-9 and Steiner, c.3:61-62 & c.4:3-5. But, none teach a “varnish” insulation coating, per se.
But, Koopmans teaches a process for blanking basic material 50 such as lamina for electric motors rotors or stators in a “multiple-geared” or “multiple-stacked” manner (Fig.8). To reduce eddy currents and relative movement between the individual layers, the basic material is provided with a thin, electrically isolating adhesive layer, i.e., a bonding varnish or ‘back lack’ that bonds the layers into an integral stack when activated by heat, i.e., cured (¶[0012]; ¶[0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the insulation layer of Iwase & Nagano or Chu, Steiner & Schultz as a back lack varnish since Koopmans teaches a varnish would have been desirable to reduce eddy currents and relative movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not entirely persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-15, 22 & 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase & Nagano, Applicant argues Nagano’s coil sections 65, 66 are lozenge- or diamond-shaped, not hairpin shaped with straight wire segments running in parallel to the cylinder axis and with a folded and bent connection between anti-parallel straight segments (Response, p.13). This is not persuasive. Nagano c.9:23-26 teaches “[e]ach turn of the coil is not necessarily required to be lozenge-shaped, but may also be hexagonal or other polygonal shape or circular.” A hexagonal-shaped coil of Nagano has the noted claimed characteristics. Per MPEP 2123(I), a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 E.g., JP 2002-247791 as noted by Nagano c.1:22-28.
2 With respect to any process features, it is noted that per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
3 Idem.
Prosecution Insights