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 .
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: ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE WITH ROTOR FIELD WINDING COMPRISING AN INCLINED PORTION
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by JP2020054157A (Pub. Date: 2020-04-02, hereinafter ‘JP’157’).
JP’157 discloses a rotating electric machine (figs. 3 and 17-18), comprising: a stator [50]; a rotor [60] (see figs. 42-46) having a rotor core [61] and main pole portions [62] that are provided at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction and protrude radially from the rotor core toward the stator, and a field winding [70: 71a, 71b] wound around each of the main pole portions; wherein (see the below included figures of JP’157with the examiner’s annotations): a center axis of the main pole portion extending in a radial direction passing through a rotation center axis of the rotor is defined as a first axis [B1],
an axis passing through a center position in the circumferential direction of the first axis adjacent in the circumferential direction and the rotation center axis and extending in a radial direction is defined as a second axis [B2],
an axis passing through a center position in the circumferential direction of the first axis and the second axis that are adjacent in the circumferential direction and the rotation center axis and extending in the radial direction is defined as a third axis [B3], and
an outer end portion of the field winding [70] in the circumferential direction in each of the main pole portions is positioned between the second axis [B2] and the third axis [B3]in the circumferential direction.
wherein the field winding [70] is configured by multiple windings of rectangular wires (Figs. 17-18 and para [0069]) so that the rectangular wires are arranged in the radial direction and the circumferential direction, and
in each of the main pole portions, an inclined portion (fig 17 & below) inclined along the second axis B2 is formed at the outer end portion of the field winding in the circumferential direction (figs 17 & below, outer end portion of the field winding forms tooth shape; tooth shape is the inclined portion & has potions inclined w/ respect to B2 & B3).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
593
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RE claim 9, JP’157 discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the outer end portion has a shape different from that of a circumferentially inner side of the rectangular wires (figs 17 & above for claim 1, outer end forms a tooth shape where the inner side of the wires forms a straight shape).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’157, as applied to the base claims 1-2.
JP’157 discloses the claimed invention, except for claim 3.
JP’157 particularly discloses the claimed rotor’s field winding is rectangular wires, and the rectangular wires are arranged radially and circumferentially adjacent to one another (see Figs. 17-18 of JP’157).
Those skilled in the art would understand that, based on the rotor field winding’s rectangular wires being wound with or without pressing/compressing process(es), a difference between a circumferential length of a contact portion between respective adjacent rectangular wires and a circumferential length of the rectangular wire is determined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the JP’157 machine by changing size(s) of the prior art rotor field winding’s rectangular wires such that a circumferential length dimension of a contact portion between the rectangular wires adjacent to each other in the radial direction is defined as WF, a circumferential length dimension of the rectangular wire is defined as WT, and WF and WT are set so as to satisfy 0.2≤WF/WT<1, as in claim 3. Doing so would prevent any potential damage to the rectangular wires during process(s) of configuring the field winding of the rotor. Also, 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). In this instant case, the general conditions of a claim that are the rotor field winding has rectangular wires arranged adjacent in both radial and circumferential direction, as disclosed in the prior art JP’157; hence, figuring the optimum ratio range 0.2≤WF/WT<1 of the circumferential length (WF) of a contact portion between the rectangular wires adjacent to each other in the radial direction, and a circumferential length (WT) of the rectangular wire would involve only routine skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’157, as applied to the base claims 1-2, in view of US 9647505 (hereinafter US’7505).
JP’157 discloses the claimed invention, except for claim 4.
However, US’7505 discloses a rotor’s winding field of rectangular wires [22], each wire is configured with a groove extending from one end to the other end of the field winding in the radial direction is formed in a portion of the field winding (see Fig. 2 provided below) for forming a radial cooling passage [22a] to remove heat from the field winding facing the main pole portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
813
1000
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Those skilled in the art would understand that the US’7505 important teaching concept is, for removing generated heat from the rotor, the rotor winding would be configured with groove therein extending from one end to the other end of the field winding in the radial direction to define cooling flow channel for cooling the rotor.
Furthermore, those skilled in the art would understand that whether or not the groove facing the main pole portion would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice based on a particular cooling configuration for the rotor, for non-limiting examples: a radial cooling configuration with a radially cooling flow channel, a circumferential cooling configuration with a circumferential cooling flow channel and an axial cooling configuration with axial cooling flow. The grooves defining respective cooling channels of these three cooling configurations would be arranged accordingly to the cooling flow direction thereof.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the JP’157 machine by configuring the prior art rotor field winding of rectangular wires with groove extending from one end to the other end of the field winding in the radial direction is formed in a portion of the field winding facing the rotor main pole. Doing so would provide cooling means for removing generated heat from the rotor, where the arrangement of the groove defining the corresponding cooling flow passage would be based on an amount of generated heat in a particular size/shape of the field winding and/or size/shape of the rotor, which are in turn based on an overall size/shape of the machine itself.
Furthermore, re-arranging the field winding’s groove facing the main pole portion, as claimed, would involve only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
RE claim 10, JP’157 in view of US’7505 discloses claim 4 as discussed above. JP’157 further discloses the outer end portion has a shape different from that of a circumferentially inner side of the rectangular wires (figs 17 & above for claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 7, last paragraph to pg 8, filed 1/16/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 under USC 35 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of JP’157. JP’157 is being reinterpreted as the inclined portion is a tooth shaped portion of the field winding along the B2 axis and has portions inclined with respect to B2 and B3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The main reason for indicating claim 8 as allowable is the inclusion of, inter alia, the limitations:
“The rotating electric machine according to claim 1, wherein the inclined portion 72 of the outer end portion has a surface parallel to the second axis B2.”
The closest prior art JP2020054157A does not disclose the above limitation.
Specifically it is not clear if the tooth shaped portion can be determined to be parallel with B2. It could be interpreted as closely aligned with B2, but not parallel.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (571)270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights