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 of Group II (claims 6-12) in the reply filed on 2/6/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse dated 2/6/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 6-12 as follows:
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --"WINDING APPARATUS FOR STATOR CORE”--.
The abstract should be updated to reflect the elected invention (e.g., stator core winding apparatus).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the elected invention II clearly directed to “the winding apparatus” and the preamble recites the use of the winding apparatus includes (e.g., configured to helically wind a wire around a winding shaft by: supplying the wire from a wire supply port while rotating the winding shaft having two or more corners on a side surface thereof; and performing, in a first region between two of the corners among the side surface of the winding shaft, an diagonal winding where axial positions of the wire at a starting point and an ending point of the winding in the first region are different) which do not further limit the apparatus because above directed to the method entity related to (e.g., operational process) which make scope of the claim unclear. In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that the scope of the claims directed to the apparatus as elected (group II) and claims will be rejected accordingly.
The transition term” comprising” (claim 6, line 7) should be updated to: --” the winding apparatus comprising” --, to reflect the scope of the elected invention (e.g., apparatus). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-12 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.
The recites of “configured to helically wind a wire around a winding shaft by: supplying the wire from a wire supply port while rotating the winding shaft having two or more corners on a side surface thereof; and performing, in a first region between two of the corners among the side surface of the winding shaft, an diagonal winding where axial positions of the wire at a starting point and an ending point of the winding in the first region are different” in the preamble about line 1-7 directed to an operations in which the winding apparatus is intended to use is/are not a part of the elected apparatus inventive features which made scope of the claim unclear.
“configured to move the holding component at least in an axial direction of the winding shaft” (see claim 6, lines 9-10); “capable of rotating the holding component in synchronization with the rotation of the winding shaft” (claim 6, lines 11-12); and” configured to control the moving structure and the rotation structure, for each rotation of the winding shaft, so as to: perform the diagonal winding while pushing the wire to a wound wire side by a holding component in vicinity of a starting point side corner of the first region; rotate the holding component in synchronization with the rotation of the winding shaft during the diagonal winding; release the pushing by the holding component after winding the wire on an ending point side corner of the first region; and then move the holding component to the vicinity of the starting point side corner of the first region before starting the diagonal winding of next rotation” (claim 6, lines 13-21) is/are functionally intended use without further limit the claimed apparatus. See MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d).
Similar to the above occurrence in dependent claims 8-10 and claim 11 about lines 9-14 which is/are method operation features which do not further limit the claimed apparatus because claims directed to the operational process of the controller (is/are not structural element features) which made scope of the claims unclear.
“comprising:” (claim 11, line 1) should be: --"further comprising:”
“comprises:” (claim 12, line 2) should be: --"comprises”--
Claims 11-12 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of independent claim 1.
Note: Regarding the phrase(s) "configured to, adapted to, capable of, operable to, and/or can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d).
The office hereby notes the phrase(s) do not limit a claim to a particular structure but rather makes optional and does not denote how features are structurally associated; whereas the claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions. If a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, then the claim may be deemed indefinite. See Board Decision: Ex parte Miyazaki, 2008 WL 5105055 at *5(BPAI Nov. 19, 2008).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 6-10 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takubo et al (US5845863).
Takubo et al discloses the claimed winding apparatus configured to helically wind a wire around a winding shaft by, the winding apparatus comprising:
a holding component 92, 93 (see Fig. 4);
a moving structure 89 configured to move the holding component at least in an axial direction of the winding shaft (see Fig. 1, or the discussion in col. 8, lines 25-32);
PNG
media_image1.png
656
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rotation structure (as motor 78) capable of rotating the holding component in synchronization with the rotation of the winding shaft (see Fig. 12-13); and
a controller 101 configured to control the moving structure (see Fig. 12, and discussed in col. 3, lines 47-48).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the structure inventive features as listed in claim 6 above is/are satisfied by the teaching of the Takubo et al.
Note that regarding, the phrases:”
“supplying the wire from a wire supply port while rotating the winding shaft having two or more corners on a side surface thereof; and performing, in a first region between two of the corners among the side surface of the winding shaft, an diagonal winding where axial positions of the wire at a starting point and an ending point of the winding in the first region are different” (in the preamble of claim 6, about lines 1-7); and/or
– “configured to control the moving structure and the rotation structure, for each rotation of the winding shaft, so as to: perform the diagonal winding while pushing the wire to a wound wire side by a holding component in vicinity of a starting point side corner of the first region; rotate the holding component in synchronization with the rotation of the winding shaft during the diagonal winding; release the pushing by the holding component after winding the wire on an ending point side corner of the first region; and then move the holding component to the vicinity of the starting point side corner of the first region before starting the diagonal winding of next rotation”(see claim 6, lines 13-21) is/are not inventive structure features (refer to section 112 above).
The Takubo et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 7 wherein the moving structure comprises: an axial movement structure 68 configured to move the holding component in the axial direction; and a radial movement structure 78 configured to move the holding component in a radial direction of the winding shaft (see Fig. 12).
Claims 8-10, regarding wherein the controller is configured to control the moving structure and the rotation structure (appears to meet by the Takubo et al), since no further inventive features existed in these claims. Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would implement the controller as taught by Takubo et al to full fill the operational intended use as set forth in above claims to improve the winding process without exercising any inventive skills.
Potential Allowable claims
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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 J 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights