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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and species A, in the reply filed on 8/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-10 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/15/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to Fig. 1, 1b, 2a, 2b (see [0022] and [-0033], for example. However, no such figures exist. Rather, each of figures 1 and 2 has subparts (a) and (b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbering of Figs. 1 and 2 is not consistent with 37 CFR 1.84(u). Fig. 1 should be separated into a Fig. 1A and a Fig. 1B, and Fig. 2 should be separated into a Fig. 2A and a Fig. 2B, with corresponding changes to the specification. 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 following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another so as to produce laminated cores”. Claim 15 recites stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another so as to produce laminated cores”. This is understood as meaning a stack of sheets is stamped to form, in one stamping operation, a stack of cores. Conventionally, in the art, multiple laminations are individually stamped from a sheet, and the laminations are stacked and pressed to form laminated cores. Whereas the specification uses the same language as in the claims, regarding the stamping of a plurality of stacked metal sheets, there are some indications that the disclosed invention actually also separately stamps the sheets and then stacks them. For example, [0019] states “Fig. 2 shows a schematic representation of a core of the electromagnet produced by stamping and stacking”. Fig. 2(a) also shows individual sheet 9 already having the indentation 11. [0023] states “the following metal sheets 9, 10, n are not fully stamped through, but receive indentations 11 which are pressed into one another, as shown in Fig. 2b.” From this figure and paragraph, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand multiple sheets as sheet 9 of Fig. 2(a) are stacked with one sheet 6 and pressed to form the laminated core 7. Claim 1 also includes the language “wherein connecting webs arranged to connect sheet metal elements, which are in at least a same position within each of the laminated cores, are retained from the stamping of the plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another”, which is understood from the specification to be refereeing to the webs formed in sheet 6 (see Fig. 3). Claim 15 requires “stamping (see [0034]) a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)) so as to produce … from one metal sheet of the plurality of stacked metal sheets … a plurality of connecting webs configured to connect the first sheet metal elements to one another”. Therefore, claim 15 requires the sheet having the webs to also be produced from the plurality of stacked sheets. However, since, as per [0023] sheet 6 is individually stamped, it cannot be said that the connecting webs are retained from the stamping of the plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 11 and 15-20 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.
See the discussion under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Since the disclosure mentions stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another so as to produce laminated cores, but also appears to suggest individual laminations are first stamped and then stacked to form the laminated core, it is unclear how to interpret the claims in light of the specification. For example, claim 1 also includes the language “wherein connecting webs arranged to connect sheet metal elements, which are in at least a same position within each of the laminated cores, are retained from the stamping of the plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another”, which is understood from the specification to be refereeing to the webs formed in sheet 6 (see Fig. 3). Claim 15 requires “stamping (see [0034]) a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)) so as to produce … from one metal sheet of the plurality of stacked metal sheets … a plurality of connecting webs configured to connect the first sheet metal elements to one another”. Therefore, claim 15 requires the sheet having the webs to also be produced from the plurality of stacked sheets. However, since, as per [0023] sheet 6 is individually stamped, it cannot be said that the connecting webs are retained from the stamping of the plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another. The scope of the claims is, therefore, unclear, since, in light of the specification, it is unclear how to interpret the limitations pertaining to stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another so as to produce laminated cores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuya (US2012/0151750A1).
Claim 15. A method for producing an electromagnet for a stator of an electric motor, the method comprising:
stamping (see [0034]) a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)) so as to produce:
laminated cores 71; see [0053]) comprising a plurality of sheet metal elements (61) shaped as teeth, the plurality of sheet metal elements including first sheet metal elements (lowest sheet in Fig. 7) corresponding to an end position within each of the laminated cores, and
from one metal sheet of the plurality of stacked metal sheets:
the first sheet metal elements,
a plurality of connecting webs (62, 63, in Fig. 2(a) of the lowest sheet in Fig. 7 configured to connect the first sheet metal elements to one another,
pressing (see [0038]) together the sheet metal elements of the laminated cores,
winding a coil (3; see [0037]) around each laminated core so as to produce a magnetic pole, and
joining the laminated cores together (see [0045]) so as to form the electromagnet, and
wherein the plurality of connecting webs are retained from the one metal sheet such that the plurality of connecting webs: i) serve as assembly aids when assembling the electromagnet, and ii) are configured to be broken during or after assembly of 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 (since the plurality of connecting webs of the lowest sheet are only found in the lowest sheet).
Claim 17. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein the first sheet metal elements are outer sheet metal elements configured to terminate the laminated cores. See Fig. 7, lowest sheet.
Claim 18. The method as recited in claim 17, wherein the plurality of connecting webs adjoin a recessed notch (where 62 attaches to 61; see Fig. 2(a); see Fig. 2, where 72 was attached; the same is understood to be found in all the sheets, including in the lowest sheet) formed in the first sheet metal elements.
Claim 20. The method as recited in claim 17, wherein the plurality of connecting webs are arranged only between the outer sheet metal elements (since the plurality of connecting webs of the lowest sheet are only found in the lowest sheet).
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) 1-4, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuya in view of Ionel (US2007/0096587A1).
Yuya discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 2, 4 and 7; 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:
stamping (see [0034]) a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)) so as to produce laminated cores (71; see [0053]) comprising sheet metal elements (61) shaped as teeth,
pressing (see [0038]) together the sheet metal elements of the laminated cores,
winding a coil (3; see [0037]) around each laminated core so as to produce a magnetic pole,
joining the wound laminated cores together (see [0045]) so as to form the electromagnet, and
wherein connecting webs (62, 63, in Fig. 2(a), of the lowest sheet in Fig. 7) arranged to connect sheet metal elements, which are in at least a same position within each of the laminated cores, are retained from the stamping of the plurality of stacked metal sheets lying one on top of another, the connecting webs i) serving as assembly aids when assembling the electromagnet, and ii) configured to be broken during or after assembly of the electromagnet.
Claim 2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the connecting webs arranged between each of the laminated cores are configured to break off during assembly of the electromagnet. See Fig. 2(d) and [0032]. Note that the term “during assembly” is vague, as assembly could be considered finished with the joining step, or it could be considered to be finished after the removing of the connecting webs.
Claim 3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the connecting webs arranged between each of the laminated cores are broken after assembly of the electromagnet. Note that the term “during assembly” is vague, as assembly could be considered finished with the joining step, or it could be considered to be finished after the removing of the connecting webs.
Claim 4. The method as recited in claim 1,
Claim 11. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the connecting webs are arranged only between the outer sheet metal elements (since the plurality of connecting webs of the lowest sheet are only found in the lowest sheet), the outer sheet elements configured to terminate the laminated cores.
Claim 19. The method as recited in claim 17,
Yuya discloses the claimed invention, except for the coils being wound in opposing directions as claimed. However, this is conventional.
Ionel, for example, discusses this conventional arrangement at [0083]. See the stator core in Fig. 25, showing the winding in opposite directions.
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.
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 Yuya in view of APA (admitted prior art).
As evident from the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), it is unclear whether Applicant’s invention actually includes stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets, or the application was intended to refer to stamping a plurality of metal sheets which are then stacked.
To the extent Applicant disagrees Yuya discloses stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying on top of another, APA discloses such a process is known. See page 1, lines 16-18 of the present application.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the laminated cores disclosed by Yuya in Fig. 2(b) by stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets, as taught by APA, as a matter of choosing among conventional techniques for stamping motor laminations, with predictable results.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuya and Ionel, further in view of APA.
Yuya as modified in view of Ionel renders obvious the claimed invention. However, to the extent Applicant disagrees Yuya discloses stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets lying on top of another, APA discloses such a process is known. See page 1, lines 16-18 of the present application.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the laminated cores disclosed by Yuya in Fig. 2(b) by stamping a plurality of stacked metal sheets, as taught by APA, as a matter of choosing among conventional techniques for stamping motor laminations, with predictable results.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights