DETAILED ACTION
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) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froment (FR2812777A3) in view of Ionel (US2007/0096587A1).
Froment discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 3-8; limitations not disclosed are crossed out, below):
Claim 1. A method for producing an electromagnet for a stator of an electric motor, the method comprising:
stacking the sheet metal elements one on top of another to produce laminated cores (41, 41’, 41”; see Fig. 4; translation page 4, lns. 7-12),
pressing (clearly, the sheet metal elements are not merely stacked) together the sheet metal elements of the laminated cores,
winding a coil (44; translation page 4, ln. 45-48) around each laminated core so as to produce a magnetic pole,
joining the wound laminated cores together after winding so as to form the electromagnet, wherein the laminated cores remain connected to one another by the connecting webs during the joining1,
wherein the connecting webs (12) are arranged to connect sheet metal elements, which are in at least a same position within each of the laminated cores, the connecting webs i) serving as assembly aids during the joining of the laminated cores to form the electromagnet, and ii) being broken during or after the joining of the laminated cores to form the electromagnet.
Claim 11. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one metal sheet is an outer metal sheet (uppermost sheet in the stack of Fig. 4), and the connecting webs are formed only from the outer metal sheet and connect only outer sheet metal elements formed from the outer metal sheet, the outer sheet metal elements being configured to terminate respective laminated cores (each sheet has its own connecting webs and outer sheet metal elements).
Froment discloses the claimed invention, except for the cutting of the sheet metal elements being performed through stamping and the coils being wound in opposing directions as claimed. However, these features are conventional.
Ionel, for example, discusses this conventional winding arrangement at [0083]. See the stator core in Fig. 25, showing the winding in opposite directions. Ionel also teaches stamping laminations from steel sheets (see [0052]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to wind the coil as claimed, given that this is a conventional winding arrangement, which would give predictable results, and to cut the sheet metal elements by stamping, as a matter of using a conventional process in a conventional device, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, it is known in the art to use either a progressive die, or a single die which can simultaneously form the various features of a sheet metal elements. See for example [0052] of Ionel, discussing simultaneously stamping a lamination 135 and alignment member 150 (see Figs. 6 and 7), alignment member 150 being analogous to the alignment members 64, 64 of Fig. 7 (see [0063] and [0064], with the alignment member of the bottom sheet in Fig. 7 being a hole; see [0064]).
In view of the teachings of Ionel, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a single punch to completely define the shape of the stamped sheet shown in Fig. 2(a), including the alignment members 64, 65 and the hole in the lowest sheet of Fig. 7, amounting to use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froment (FR2812777A3) in view of Yuya (US2012/0151750A1).
Claim 15. A method for producing an electromagnet for a stator of an electric motor, the method comprising:
stacking the sheet metal elements one on top of another to produce laminated cores (41, 41’, 41”; see Fig. 4; translation page 4, lns. 7-12),
pressing (clearly, the sheet metal elements are not merely stacked) together the sheet metal elements of the laminated cores,
winding a coil (44; translation page 4, ln. 45-48) around each laminated core so as to produce a magnetic pole, and
joining the wound laminated cores together after winding so as to form the electromagnet, wherein the laminated cores remain connected to one another by the connecting webs during the joining (see footnote 1),
wherein the connecting webs (11 and 12) are arranged to connect sheet metal elements, which are in at least a same position within each of the laminated cores, the connecting webs i) serving as assembly aids during the joining of the laminated cores to form the electromagnet, and ii) being broken during or after the joining of the laminated cores to form the electromagnet.
Claim 16. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein the plurality of connecting webs are arranged only between the first sheet metal elements retained from the one metal sheet (each sheet has its own connecting webs and outer sheet metal elements).
Claim 17. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein the one metal sheet is an outer metal sheet (e.g. uppermost sheet in the stack of Fig. 4), and the first sheet metal elements are outer sheet metal elements formed on the outer metal sheet and are outer sheet metal elements configured to terminate respective laminated cores. See Fig. 4.
Claim 18. The method as recited in claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of connecting webs adjoin a recessed notch (see notch defined by 11, 12 and 15) formed in a corresponding one of the first sheet metal elements.
Claim 20. The method as recited in claim 17, wherein the plurality of connecting webs are formed only from the outer metal sheet and connect only the outer sheet metal elements (each sheet has its own connecting webs and outer sheet metal elements).
Froment discloses the claimed invention, except for the cutting of the sheet metal elements being performed through. However, this feature is conventional.
Yuya, for example, discusses this conventional process. As shown in FIG. 2(a), a plurality of core pieces 61 used for the divided laminated cores 71 that composes a stator 2 are punched out (i.e., stamped) from a magnetic steel sheet. See [0034].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to cut the sheet metal elements by stamping, as a matter of using a conventional process in a conventional device ready for improvement, with predictable results.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froment in view of Ionel, further in view of Scholer DE102004060078A1).
Froment as modified in view of Ionel renders obvious the claimed invention, except for the limitations of claims 2-3.
Scholer discloses an embodiment very similar to that of Froment, with portions 17, 27, 37 of Scholer being analogous to portions 12 of Froment, and band 3 of Scholer being analogous to spine 11 of Froment.
Scholer teaches that the “bending process into the circular shape is improved if the band is arranged parallel to the adjacent elements and has at least one constriction between adjacent elements, which reduces the band cross-section. In this way, a particularly low bending resistance moment is achieved, which benefits the bending process.” See [0008], [0021] and cross-sectional constriction 9. Scholer also teaches separating the webs 17, 27 and 37 by cutting after bending into the circular shape (corresponding to the claimed joining process). See [0029] and [0030]. Regarding claim 2, severing the connecting webs automatically breaks the, off from the sheet metal elements.
Taking into consideration the teachings of Scholer, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious an alternative implementation of the process of modified Froment, wherein spine 11 is provided with cross-sectional constrictions to allow bending the stator into the circular shape, rather than separating the spine 11 at the beginning of the joining process, as a simple substitution of one conventional process with another, to achieve the same end structure, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, it is known in the art to use either a progressive die, or a single die which can simultaneously form the various features of a sheet metal elements. See for example [0052] of lonel, discussing simultaneously stamping a lamination 135 and alignment member 150 (see Figs. 6 and 7), alignment member 150. Scholer teaches forming holes 18, which can be used to positioning the stacked sheets. See [0020].
In view of the teachings of Scholer, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide in Froment such through holes corresponding to recesses 18 disclosed by Scholer, to further facilitate aligning of stacked sheet metal elements. Further, in view of lonel, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a single punch to completely define the shape of the stamped sheet shown in Fig. 3, including added alignment through holes, amounting to use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froment in view of Ionel, further in view of Yuya.
Froment in view of Ionel renders obvious the claimed invention, except for the limitations of claim 4.
Yuya teaches forming portions 64 to be received in portions 65 of an adjacent sheet when stacking, analogous to deformation 17, 17’, 17” of Fremont. Yuya further teaches the last sheet in the stack having a through hole (see Fig. 7), to receive the protrusion 64 of the penultimate sheet.
Additionally, it is known in the art to use either a progressive die, or a single die which can simultaneously form the various features of a sheet metal elements. See for example [0052] of lonel, discussing simultaneously stamping a lamination 135 and alignment member 150 (see Figs. 6 and 7), alignment member 150.
In view of the teachings of Yuya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide in Froment such through holes in the last sheet of the stack, into which the deformation 17 of the penultimate sheet can be received. Further, in view of lonel, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a single punch to completely define the shape of the stamped sheet shown in Fig. 3, including the through holes of the last sheet, amounting to use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froment in view of Yuya, further in view of Ionel.
Froment in view of Yuya renders obvious the claimed invention, except for the limitations of claim 19.
Yuya teaches forming portions 64 to be received in portions 65 of an adjacent sheet when stacking, analogous to deformation 17, 17’, 17” of Fremont. Yuya further teaches the last sheet in the stack having a through hole (see Fig. 7), to receive the protrusion 64 of the penultimate sheet.
Additionally, it is known in the art to use either a progressive die, or a single die which can simultaneously form the various features of a sheet metal elements. See for example [0052] of lonel, discussing simultaneously stamping a lamination 135 and alignment member 150 (see Figs. 6 and 7), alignment member 150.
In view of the teachings of Yuya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide in modified Froment such through holes in the last sheet of the stack, into which the deformation 17 of the penultimate sheet can be received. Further, in view of lonel, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a single punch to completely define the shape of the stamped sheet shown in Fig. 3, including the through holes of the last sheet, amounting to use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 See Fig. 8 and translation page 4, ln. 51 to translation page 5, ln. 2. As part of the joining step, the breakable bridges 12 are broken and support 11 is removed. Therefore, at least for part of the joining step (i.e. the step following the winding), the laminated cores remain connected by the connection webs.
Prosecution Insights