DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “support cylinder [120] is arranged next to an inner radial surface of the helical lamination stack [114]” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 & 23 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.
In claim 2, the subject matter of the alternative limitation of a “rotor compris[ing] a continuous hairpin winding having at least two layers” in view of the limitation “the ring-cylindrical stator comprises a continuous hairpin winding having at least two layers” (claim 1) is indefinite. The published specification ¶[0047] & Fig.1 teaches the rotor 13 comprises permanent magnet poles 131, not a continuous hairpin winding.
In claim 23, the language “wherein each of the at least two layers of the continuous hairpin winding comprises a respective strip…” is indefinite. It is unclear what this means when the “strips” coated with insulating varnish described in the rest of the claim and in ¶[0018] of the published specification refers to the continuous helically wound strip 115 of magnetically permeable material forming the helical lamination stack 114 (Fig.1), not to the continuous hairpin winding 2.
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 stator winding is not a “continuous hairpin” winding “having at least two layers”.
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). 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).1
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 Hibino et al. (US 5,313,131) in view of Steiner (US 5,396,138) and Wedman (US 9,425,664).
Regarding claim 1, Hibino teaches a rotating electromechanical apparatus, comprising a ring-cylindrical (i) ironless stator, wherein the ring-cylindrical stator comprises a ring cylindrical casing having a (ii) cylindrical inner surface (not numbered; interior of cylinder), wherein the ring cylindrical casing comprises a helical lamination stack (core) 5A of a helically wound strip of magnetically permeable material (laminated core), having multiple turns (i.e., tape-shaped electromagnetic steel sheets; c.7:3-5; Fig.17), wherein the strip comprises two main surfaces and two side surfaces (not numbered, axial and side surfaces; Fig.17), wherein at least one of the two main surfaces comprise an insulation coating, wherein
(iii) the ring cylindrical casing further comprises a support cylinder (insulating paper) 9 arranged coaxially with the helical lamination stack (Figs.5-6), wherein
(iv) the support cylinder 9 is arranged next to an inner radial surface (not numbered) of the helical lamination stack (c.4:57-61; Figs.5-6), wherein
(v) a permanent connection is formed between the support cylinder 9 and the helical lamination stack, wherein the permanent connection is a “chemical fit connection” [sic] (i.e., after cylindrical coil 8 is inserted, a cylindrical molding tool 10 molds the coil---and, by extension, support cylinder 9 on the coil 8---to core 5A using glue, e.g., thermosetting resin containing a magnetic powder, c.6:62-68; Figs.5-7), and wherein the ring-cylindrical stator further comprises a....winding (cylindrical coil) 8 having at least two layers (composed of individual coils 6; Figs.2,4&10).
PNG
media_image5.png
299
375
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
461
349
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
208
145
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hibino differs in that at least one of the main surfaces of the helically wound strip does not comprise an insulation coating and the winding is not a “continuous hairpin” winding.
But, regarding the first difference, 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). The coating provides electrical insulation and chemical inertness (c.3:61-c.4:9).
PNG
media_image8.png
364
861
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide at least one of the main surfaces of the helically wound strip of Hibino with an insulation coating since Steiner teaches this would have provided electrical insulation and chemical inertness.
Regarding the second difference, Wedman teaches a composite slotless stator with a continuous hairpin winding (cylindrical ironless stator coil) 100 comprising conductors 110 wound in a multi-phase wave winding configuration, each phase having at least two layers formed by the conductors folded over on front and back sides of bobbin 105 (c.1:56-c.2:43; c.8:30-34; Figs.1-2). Wedman’s continuous hairpin winding has substantially no excess wire in end turns at the edges of the bobbin where the wires are wound over from front to back of the planar bobbin, which results in the wire conductors being configurable entirely within the magnetic field flux region of the rotor. Also, the absence of such turnings and crossovers reduces the overall volume of the stator as compared to conventional winding arrangements for configuring wires in stators, and a larger mass fraction of wire is configured within the magnetic field flux region, thus providing more efficient arrangement of the wire conductors for force induction (c.6:31-49).
PNG
media_image9.png
457
366
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the winding of Hibino & Steiner as a “continuous hairpin winding” having at least two layers since Wedman teaches such a winding would have reduced excess wire and overall volume of the stator and provided more efficient arrangement of the wire conductors for force induction.
Regarding claim 2, Hibino teaches the rotating electromechanical apparatus includes a permanent magnet rotor 1 (abstract; c.2:61-68). Similarly, Steiner teaches the rotating electromechanical apparatus includes a permanent magnet rotor 13 (abstract; c.2:29-30). Regarding claim 3, Hibino’s magnetically permeable material (electromagnetic 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, Hibino’s tape-shaped strip of magnetically permeable material has a constant thickness and width (intrinsic to rectangular cross-section; Fig.5A). Similarly, 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 Hibino’s helical lamination stack (core) 5A is wound from a single strip of magnetically permeable material, not plural strips arranged parallel and coaxial to one another, Hibino’s helical lamination stack (Fig.5&17) has the same structure as a “multiple-geared helical lamination stack” formed from plural strips of material.
Regarding claim 8, Hibino intrinsically teaches neighboring main surfaces of the tape-shaped strip are “arranged with negligible gaps between each other such that a full-surface hollow cylinder of magnetically permeable material is formed” (Figs.5&17). Similarly, 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, Hibino’s helical lamination stack 5A comprises a continuous helically wound strip of magnetically permeable (ferromagnetic) material having multiple turns (Fig.17). Similarly, 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, Hibino teaches the stator may comprise cores (c.2:65-66), i.e., a plurality of the helical lamination stacks 5A which are arranged coaxially next to each other along the cylinder axis of the ring cylindrical casing (Fig.17). Alternatively, constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 13, Hibino teaches a motor, as do Steiner and Wedman.
Regarding claim 14, a product-by-process claim, Hibino teaches the claimed apparatus including bending a strip of magnetically permeable material around an axis of rotation multiple times to form a helical lamination stack 5A, wherein the strip comprises two main surfaces and two side surfaces (i.e., tape-shaped electromagnetic steel coiled longitudinally; c.7:1-5; Fig.17). Further, 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).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).
Regarding claim 15, a product-by-process claim, Hibino teaches a “permanent connection” [sic] formed between the support cylinder 9 arranged co-axially with the helical lamination stack 10, thereby forming the ring cylindrical casing 5A (i.e., after cylindrical coil 8 is inserted, a cylindrical molding tool 10 molds the coil---and support cylinder 9 on the coil 8---to core 5A using glue, e.g., thermosetting resin containing a magnetic powder, c.6:62-68; Figs.5-7),
Regarding claim 22, a product-by-process claim, Hibino’s molding of the helical lamination stack on support cylinder using, e.g., a thermosetting resin (c.6:62-68; Figs.5-7), encompasses a “gluing” process.
Regarding claim 24, Hibino’s ring cylindrical casing has a substantially cylindrical outer surface (not numbered; Fig.5).
Claims 5 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase & Nagano or Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 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 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 Hibino, Steiner & Wedman 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 moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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).
2 Idem.