DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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 re claims 1 and 9, the term “quadrangular cylinder” is vague and indefinite because a cylinder structure is generally defined and well known in the art as a circular structure and thus cannot be quadrangular. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami (US 2017/0110929) in view of Kleber (US 8671559).
In re claim 1, Egami, in figures 1-9, discloses a terminal fixing structure applied in a stator and comprising: a wire terminal comprising a first end (terminals of 121-123); a bus bar terminal comprising a second end (215,224,234), wherein a sidewall of the first end and a sidewall of the second end are immediately-adjacent to each other. Egami does not teach a solder joint or a metal ring. Kleber however, in figures 1-6, discloses a similar device having a metal ring (70) disposed around the first end and the second end (as seen in figures 4-6); and a solder joint structure connecting an end surface of the first end and an end surface of the second end (see figure 6 showing solder 52 being applied to the ends, also see claim 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a solder joint and a metal ring as taught by Kleber to connect the wire ends of Egami to provide a more reliable connection.
In re claim 2, Kleber discloses that the solder joint structure is in physical contact with the metal ring (Figure 6 shows that the metal ring is immersed in solder, and thus the resulting joint is in contact with the ring).
In re claim 3, Kleber teaches the metal ring except for the specific length range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the ring more than 2mm long, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 11, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 4, Kleber discloses that a distance, between the sidewall of the first end and the sidewall of the second end that are immediately-adjacent to each other, is smaller than 0.5 millimeter (figure 4c shows that the ends contact each other at 58).
In re claim 5, Egami in view of Kleber discloses that the metal ring conformally contacts remaining sidewalls except the immediately-adjacent sidewalls of the first end and the second end (this is an inherent function of the shown structure).
In re claim 6, Kleber discloses that the metal ring is a polygon with rounded corners (as best shown in figure 4c).
In re claim 7, Kleber discloses that a sidewall of the bus bar terminal has at least one stepped structure to restrict the metal ring (figure 3 shows that a stepped structure in the terminal exists at portion 74).
In re claim 8, Egami and Kleber disclose the claimed invention except for the claimed size relationship between the bus bar terminal and the wire terminal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a cross-sectional area of the bus bar terminal of Egami/Kleber larger than a cross-sectional area of the wire terminal since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art optimizing a size would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144 IV).
In re claim 9, Egami, in figures 1-9, discloses a stator comprising: a stator core comprising multiple slot-positions (as seen in figures 1-2); a plurality of wire terminals each comprising a wire terminal end (121-123), the wire terminal end being partially located in a corresponding one of the multiple slot-positions (not clearly shown, but inherently present for proper connection), the wire terminal end comprising a first end; a plurality of bus bar terminals disposed in the stator core, each of the plurality of bus bar terminals comprising a bus bar terminal end, the bus bar terminal end comprising a second end (215,224,234), wherein a sidewall of the first end and a sidewall of the second end are immediately-adjacent to each other. Egami does not teach a solder joint or a metal ring. Kleber however, in figures 1-6, discloses a similar device having a metal ring (70) disposed around the first end and the second end (as seen in figures 4-6); and a solder joint structure connecting an end surface of the first end and an end surface of the second end (see figure 6 showing solder 52 being applied to the ends, also see claim 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a solder joint and a metal ring as taught by Kleber to connect the wire ends of Egami to provide a more reliable connection.
In re claim 10, Egami, in figures 1-9, discloses that the wire terminals comprise an electrical phase terminal or an electrical neutral terminal (as seen in figure 3).
In re claim 11, Kleber discloses that the solder joint structures are in physical contact with the corresponding metal rings (Figure 6 shows that the metal ring is immersed in solder, and thus the resulting joint is in contact with the ring).
In re claim 12, Kleber discloses that a distance, between the sidewall of the first end and the sidewall of the second end that are immediately-adjacent to each other, is smaller than 0.5 millimeter (figure 4c shows that the ends contact each other at 58).
In re claim 13, Kleber discloses that the metal ring is a polygon with rounded corners (as best shown in figure 4c).
In re claim 14, Kleber discloses that a sidewall each of the bus bar terminals has at least one stepped structure to restrict a corresponding one of the metal rings (figure 3 shows that a stepped structure in the terminal exists at portion 74).
In re claim 15, Egami in view of Kleber discloses that each metal ring conformally contacts remaining sidewalls except the immediately-adjacent sidewalls of the corresponding first end and the corresponding second end (this is an inherent function of the shown structure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837