Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026. Claims 1 & 4 are pending, claims 1 and 4 are under examination, and claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection1 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200204028 A1) hereinafter Mizushima, and further in view of Bettelini (E.P. Patent Application Publication 0892481 A1) and Nishimura et al (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2019068565 A) hereinafter Nishimura.
Regarding claim 1, Mizushima discloses a stator manufacturing method (Title: Stator, Method for Manufacturing Stator, Coil, and Method for Manufacturing Coil), a first embodiment comprising
inserting lead-side segment coils (segment coil 30 upper side, ¶74) covered with an insulating film (insulating film IL, ¶73) and lead-opposite-side segment coils (segment coil 30 lower side, ¶74) covered with an insulating film into a plurality of slots (plurality of slots 2s, ¶77) formed between a plurality of teeth radially protruding from an annular yoke (¶69, “the teeth 2t extend in a radial direction from an annular outer peripheral portion (yoke) toward an axis”), along an axial direction of the yoke (FIG. 1 depicts segment coils being inserted in the axial direction into the yoke), and electrically connecting ends of the lead-side segment coils and ends of the lead- opposite-side segment coils by using connecting members (coupling member 35, ¶83, “the tips T that face each other are electrically connected by a coupling member 35”; FIG. 1 depicts tips T of segment coils 30, upper and lower sides respectively, electrically connecting along an axial direction),
PNG
media_image1.png
432
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
449
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the lead-side segment coils and the lead-opposite-side segment coils being collectively inserted into the plurality of slots (FIG. 14 depicts an arrow to describe the inserting of segment coil 30, i.e., coil assemblies A12, A34, A56, and A78; see also ¶95, “the lowering members P12, P34, P56, and P78 are annular members having different bore diameters and different outside diameters, and are concentrically and coaxially arranged so as to push the corresponding coil assemblies A12, A34, A56, and A78”); and
PNG
media_image3.png
867
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
forming the lead-side segment coils and the lead-opposite-side segment coils with exposed conductor portions while the lead-side segment coils are inserted in the plurality of slots (¶83 and FIG. 1 disclose “tips T that face each other” expose their conductor portions to be “electrically connected by a coupling member 35 in the slot 2s”).
Mizushima teaches certain limitations with the first embodiment, but does not teach the usage of a probe to measure resistance along an axial direction on an exposed region of the segment coil. Mizushima, however through a second embodiment, teaches in ¶149 and as illustrated in FIG. 26 below resistance measurement done through the usage of a probe (probe 144, ¶149) in an axial direction (same direction as the inserting direction of slot coils 51-56, ¶146, as indicated by the arrows in FIG. 25).
PNG
media_image4.png
337
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
316
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mizushima discloses the stator manufacturing method, a first embodiment comprising of the step of inserting segment coils to the bottom and top side of a yoke containing slots and teeth, utilizing coupling members to electrically connect ends of respective coils along with probes to measure resistance in the radial direction located inside the stator. Mizushima also discloses, through a secondary embodiment, the usage of a probe to measure resistance along an axial direction on an exposed region of the segment coil. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Mizushima’s manufacturing method from the first embodiment and taking the axial direction of the probe for resistance measurement of an exposed region from Mizushima’s secondary embodiment to result in the immediately claimed method, allowing for orientation of the probe such that it is relocated in the axial direction, being obvious as it is routine optimization allowing for improved accessibility of the measurement location, accommodation for space constraints of the stator and/or assembly device, and avoidance of moving parts and interfaces.
However, Mizushima fails to disclose the first embodiment wherein the step of forming holes is done by penetrating the insulating film at coil ends, wherein
the holes in the insulating films at the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils and the holes in the insulating films at the coil ends of the lead-opposite-side segment coils are formed by sticking a probe for resistance measurement into the insulating films of the lead-side segment coils and the insulating films of the lead-opposite-side segment coils,
positions of the holes formed at adjacent coil ends of the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils differ from each other along a direction in which the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils extend, and are arranged with predetermined distances to secure electric insulation among the lead- side segment coils, and
positions of the holes formed at adjacent coil ends of the coil ends of the lead-opposite- side segment coils differ from each other along a direction in which the coil ends of the lead- opposite-side segment coils extend, and are arranged with predetermined distances to secure electric insulation among the lead-opposite-side segment coils.
Bettelini discloses a coil manufacturing method (Title: Coil for an Electric Timepiece) comprising the step of forming holes (p. 3, ll. 1-2, “a measuring probe 26 which cuts locally the plate 10 then comes into contact with the wire 11”; the act of cutting with a probe results in a hole) by penetrating the insulating film (plate 10, p. 3, ll. 1-2) at coil ends (ear, p. 1, ll. 12-13), wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
502
803
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the holes in the insulating films at the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils and the holes in the insulating films at the coil ends of the lead-opposite-side segment coils are formed by sticking, from the axial direction, a probe (measuring probe 26, p. 3, ll. 1-2) for resistance measurement (p. 3, ll. 2-3, “the electrical resistance of the winding is measured between the two probes 26”) into the insulating films of the coil.
While Mizushima teaches a first and second embodiment of a stator manufacturing method including the use of a probe to measure resistance of segment coils at exposed ends in the axial direction, Bettelini further discloses the method of using a probe to cut into an insulation layer, namely a plate, forming a hole to achieve a resistance measurement in the radial direction of a coil of an electric timepiece. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Mizushima’s manufacturing method, taking the axial direction of the probe for resistance measurement of an exposed region from Mizushima’s secondary embodiment, and applying a probe cutting method of Bettelini to form the exposed region of a segment coil at easily accessible locations of segment coils to result in the immediately claimed method. Doing so is obvious as it allows a POSITA to achieve immediate control of the coil during and after the manufacturing of the stator and of proceeding assemblies including the stator (Bettelini p. 3, ll. 4-6). Doing so is obvious as it allows a POSITA to achieve immediate control of the coil during and after the manufacturing of the stator and of proceeding assemblies including the stator (Bettelini p. 3, ll. 4-6).
Furthermore, Nishimura further discloses a stator (Title: Stator of Rotary Electric Machine) wherein the positions of the holes (exposed conductor, p. 5, ll. 1) formed at adjacent coil ends (joint end 64, p. 7, ll. 28) of the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils (segment coil 62, p. 7, ll. 21) differ from each other along a direction in which the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils extend (annotated FIGS. 1 & 3 have adjacent segment coils (adjacent in the non-radial direction), wherein the respective coil ends of adjacent coils are at different points of the axis (coil extending direction) as indicated by the annotation circles in FIG. 3 below), and
PNG
media_image7.png
340
436
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
484
459
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are arranged with predetermined distances to secure electric insulation among the lead-side segment coils (distance ds, p. 7, ll. 21-22, “a sufficient distance is secured between another segment coil extending in the direction close to one segment coil 62”), and
PNG
media_image9.png
260
482
media_image9.png
Greyscale
positions of the holes (exposed conductor, p. 5, ll. 1) formed at adjacent coil ends of the coil ends (joint end 64, p. 7, ll. 28) of the lead-opposite- side segment coils (segment coil 62, p. 7, ll. 21) differ from each other along a direction in which the coil ends of the lead- opposite-side segment coils extend (annotated FIGS. 1 & 3 have adjacent segment coils (adjacent in the non-radial direction), wherein the respective coil ends of adjacent coils are at different points of the axis (coil extending direction) as indicated by the annotation circles in FIG. 3), and are arranged with predetermined distances to secure electric insulation among the lead-opposite-side segment coils (distance ds, p. 7, ll. 21-22, “a sufficient distance is secured between another segment coil extending in the direction close to one segment coil 62”).
The combination of Mizushima’s first and second embodiment, in view of Bettelini, teaches a stator manufacturing method as well as implementation of a probe applied in the axial direction to form a hole in the insulation layer to measure resistance of connecting segment coils. Nishimura, furthermore, discloses the distances between exposed conductor portions, namely joint ends of segment coils, that is required between adjacent segment coils to retain electric insulation of an electric machine such as a stator or rotary electric machine. Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the known ideology of securing electric insulation via distance between exposed portions taught by Nishimura to the stator manufacturing method and electrical measuring method of Mizushima, in view of Bettelini, yielding predictable results. A POSITA would have recognized that by doing so, it would allow for stator coils to secure electrical insulation between joint end sections that are adjoined to each other and allow for downsize of a stator of an electric machine (Nishimura abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Mizushima in view of Bettelini and Nishimura teaches a stator manufacturing method, and Bettelini further discloses the stator manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein each of the holes formed at the coil ends of the lead-side segment coils and the lead-opposite-side segment coils has a diameter (diameter of measuring probe 26) to secure the electric insulation (p. 3, ll. 3-4, “this way of doing things avoids having to strip the wire with the disadvantages and risks inherent in this transaction”) and allow the probe for the resistance measurement to contact with the exposed conductor portions (p. 3, ll. 1-3, “measuring probe 26 which cuts locally the plate 10 then comes into contact with the wire 11… the electrical resistance of the winding is then measured”).
(Bettelini discloses a probe configured to penetrate an insulating layer, namely a plate, when comes into contact with the conducting portion without requiring the step of stripping the insulation. Bettelini further teaches that arrangement avoids the disadvantages and risks associated with stripping the insulation. To one of ordinary skill in the art, they would have understood and recognized that maintaining the insulating function of the insulating layer is desirable as to prevent “disadvantages”, risking unintended electrical contact. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select a probe with an appropriate diameter sufficiently small to form such a hole while preserving surrounding insulation to thereby maintain electrical insulation. Also, the diameter of the probe affects the size of the hole formed. Because Bettelini teaches cutting, namely penetrating, the insulation while avoiding the “disadvantages” optimization of the probe diameter to retain insulation would have been within ordinary skill. Thus, determination of a probe diameter constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable). (For reasons to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 4 in the manner of orientating the probe in the axial direction to form holes in the insulation to measure electrical resistance as well as determination of respective hole distances to secure electrical insulation).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment2 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 EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 The examiner acknowledges that Applicant incorporated certain limitations as suggested during an interview performed on 4/7/2026. A careful review of prior art references, however, reveals that another second embodiment of the prior art references, may teach the proposed limitations. See infra rejection. As the teaching of the second embodiment is newly relied upon, the rejection under 35 USC 103 below is designated as new ground.
Prosecution Insights