DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 12/17/25. Regarding the amendment, claims 1-32 are present for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remark, filed 12/17/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Hino et al. (US 11,616,407 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hino and Kurosaki.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-10, 15-18, 20, 23-24, 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino et al. (US 11,616,407 B2) in view of Kurosaki (US 2013/0276297 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hino teaches a stator (10) for a rotating electric machine, the stator comprising:
a stator core (30) formed of a band-shaped steel sheet (31), the stator core (30) having a plurality of slots (13) each opening at an inner periphery of the stator core (30) and spaced from one another in a circumferential direction; and
a stator coil (20) formed of a plurality of electrical conductor segments (21, fig 11), the electrical conductor segments (21) having respective leg portions (S1-S6) inserted in the slots of the stator core and connected with one another,
wherein:
in the band-shaped steel sheet (31), for each of at least some of the slots (13), there is formed at least one slit (60, fig 47), at a position corresponding to the slot (13), to be open to the slot (13); and
at one or more locations in the stator, a pair of the leg portions (S1-S6) of the electrical conductor segments (21) are connected with each other across at least one of those slots (13, fig 11) for each of which the at least one slit (60) is formed to be open to the slot (13). However, Hino does not teach the band-shaped steel sheet that is helically bent and laminated.
Kurosaki teaches a helical core for a rotating electrical machine wherein the helical core formed of a band-shaped steel sheet (21) that is helically bent and laminated (abstract) to increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino’s stator with the band-shaped steel sheet that is helically bent and laminated as taught by Kurosaki. Doing so would increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Hino teaches a stator (10) for a rotating electric machine, the stator comprising:
a stator core (30) formed of a band-shaped steel sheet (31) that is helically bent and laminated, the stator core (30) having a plurality of slots (13) each opening at an inner periphery of the stator core (30) and spaced from one another in a circumferential direction; and
a stator coil (20) formed of a plurality of electrical conductor segments (21, fig 11) that are inserted in the slots of the stator core and connected with one another,
wherein:
the band-shaped steel sheet (31), has a plurality of slits (60, fig 47) each of which is formed, at a position corresponding to one of the slot (13), to be open to the corresponding slot (13); and
each of the electrical conductor segments (21) is substantially U-shaped and has a pair of leg portions (S1-S6) respectively inserted in corresponding two of the slots (13) of the stator core (30), the corresponding two slots (13) being circumferentially apart from each other by two more slot-pitches. However, Hino does not teach the band-shaped steel sheet that is helically bent and laminated.
Kurosaki teaches a helical core for a rotating electrical machine wherein the helical core formed of a band-shaped steel sheet (21) that is helically bent and laminated (abstract) to increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino’s stator with the band-shaped steel sheet that is helically bent and laminated as taught by Kurosaki. Doing so would increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches each of the slits (60) has a pair of side surfaces facing each other (fig 47); a recess (63) is formed in one of the pair of side surfaces, and a protrusion (62) is formed on the other of the pair of side surfaces; and the protrusion is press-fitted in the recess (fig 47).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches each of the slits (60) has a pair of side surfaces facing each other; a first engagement portion (62) is formed in one of the pair of side surfaces, and a second engagement portion (63) is formed in the other of the pair of side surfaces; and the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion are engaged with each other (fig 47).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches for each of the slits (60), there is formed an indentation (61) in an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet (31B) at a position corresponding to an end of the slit (60) on an opposite side to the corresponding slot (13, fig 47).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches each of the number of the slots (13) and the number of the slits (60) is greater than or equal to 48 (col 6 ln 29-30).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches the stator core (31) has a polygonal prism shape (fig 2); and a case (2) is fitted under pressure on an outer periphery of the stator core (fig 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches radial positions of outer circumferential surfaces of a plurality of layers of the helically-laminated band-shaped steel sheet (31) vary in a lamination direction of the band-shaped steel sheet.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, except for the added limitation of the stator core is formed by helically bending the band-shaped steel sheet, which extends straight in its longitudinal direction before being helically bent, while laminating layers of the helically-bent band-shaped steel sheet into a substantially annular shape.
Kurosaki further teaches the stator core (11) is formed by helically bending the band-shaped steel sheet (para [0058]), which extends straight in its longitudinal direction before being helically bent (fig 2A-2B), while laminating layers of the helically-bent band-shaped steel sheet into a substantially annular shape (fig 3) to increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with the stator core is formed by helically bending the band-shaped steel sheet, which extends straight in its longitudinal direction before being helically bent, while laminating layers of the helically-bent band-shaped steel sheet into a substantially annular shape as further taught by Kurosaki. Doing so would increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Regarding claims 31-32, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, except for the added limitation of the stator core has a one-piece structure.
Kurosaki further teaches the stator core (11) has a one-piece structure (fig 3) to increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with the stator core has a one-piece structure as further taught by Kurosaki. Doing so would increase production flexibility and decrease cost of manufacturing (para [0029]).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino in view of Kurosaki, further in view of Senn (EP 1775825 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 4 and 18, Hino further teaches the stator core (31) has a back yoke (31a) extending in the circumferential direction (fig 47) and a plurality of teeth (31b) extending radially inward from the back yoke (31a) and spaced from one another in the circumferential direction; each of the slots (13) is formed between a circumferentially-adjacent pair of the teeth (31b). However, Hino does not teach the end of the slit on the opposite side to the corresponding slot is located radially outside and in radial alignment with a corresponding one of the teeth.
Senn teaches a circular laminated core having plurality of slits (86) wherein the end of the slit (86) on the opposite side to the corresponding slot (82) is located radially outside and in radial alignment with a corresponding one of the teeth(81, fig 6) to prevent peripherally protruding metal folds so that achieve laminated stack stator core (page 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with the end of the slit on the opposite side to the corresponding slot is located radially outside and in radial alignment with a corresponding one of the teeth as taught by Senn. Doing so would prevent peripherally protruding metal folds so that achieve laminated stack stator core (page 6).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino in view of Kurosaki, further in view of Murakami et al. (US 6,919,665 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, Hino further teaches each of the slits (60) has a pair of side surfaces facing each other, except for the added limitation of each of the pair of side surface is arc-shaped.
Murakami teaches a stator core (1) having plurality of slits (13) wherein each of the pair of side surface (14-15) is arc-shaped (fig 3) to prevent the bent portions from deforming by stress (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with each of the pair of side surface is arc-shaped as taught by Murakami. Doing so would prevent the bent portions from deforming by stress (abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Hino in view of Kurosaki and Murakami teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 7 and 21, except for the added limitation of the pair of side surfaces facing each other consists of a first side surface and a second side surface that is deformed later than the first side surface when the band-shaped steel sheet is helically bent and laminated to form the stator core; and a radius of curvature of the second side surface is set to be greater than a radius of curvature of the first side surface.
Murakami further teaches a stator core (1) having plurality of slits (13) wherein the pair of side surfaces (16, 16’) facing each other consists of a first side surface and a second side surface that is deformed later than the first side surface when the band-shaped steel sheet (12) is helically bent and laminated to form the stator core; and a radius of curvature of the second side surface (15) is set to be greater than a radius of curvature of the first side surface (14, fig 3) to prevent the bent portions from deforming by stress (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki and Murakami’s stator with the pair of side surfaces facing each other consists of a first side surface and a second side surface that is deformed later than the first side surface when the band-shaped steel sheet is helically bent and laminated to form the stator core; and a radius of curvature of the second side surface is set to be greater than a radius of curvature of the first side surface as further taught by Murakami. Doing so would prevent the bent portions from deforming by stress (abstract).
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino in view of Kurosaki, further in view of Nagai et al. (US 7,777,387 B2).
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, except for the added limitation of for each of the slits, there is formed an indentation in an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet at a position circumferentially offset from an imaginary line that extends radially outward from an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot.
Nagai teaches a laminated core having a plurality of slits (22), there is formed an indentation (16, fig 3) in an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet (13) at a position circumferentially offset from an imaginary line that extends radially outward from an end of the slit (22) on an opposite side to the corresponding slot (17) to reduce efficiency and vibration in the motor using the laminated core (col 1 ln 44-45).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with plurality of slits, there is formed an indentation in an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet at a position circumferentially offset from an imaginary line that extends radially outward from an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot as taught by Nagai. Doing so would reduce efficiency and vibration in the motor using the laminated core (col 1 ln 44-45).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino in view of Kurosaki, further in view of Nagai et al. (US 7,847,466 B2).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, except for the added limitation of for each of the slits, there is formed a protrusion that protrudes radially outward from an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet at a position corresponding to an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot.
Nagai teaches a laminated core having a plurality of slits (50), there is formed a protrusion (50, fig 6) that protrudes radially outward from an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet (51) at a position corresponding to an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot (fig 6) to reduce the bulge of the connecting portion (col 3 ln 59-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with plurality of slits, there is formed a protrusion that protrudes radially outward from an outer edge portion of the band-shaped steel sheet at a position corresponding to an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot as taught by Nagai. Doing so would reduce the bulge of the connecting portion (col 3 ln 59-60).
Regarding claims 13 and 27, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, except for the added limitation of for each of the slits, there is formed a circumferential slit that extends, from an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot, to both sides in the circumferential direction.
Nagai teaches a laminated core having a plurality of slits (35), there is formed a circumferential slit (35, fig 3) that extends, from an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot, to both sides in the circumferential direction (fig 3) to reduce the bulge of the connecting portion (col 3 ln 59-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with plurality of slits, there is formed a circumferential slit that extends, from an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot, to both sides in the circumferential direction as taught by Nagai. Doing so would reduce the bulge of the connecting portion (col 3 ln 59-60).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Hino in view of Kurosaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 15, except for the added limitation of for each of the slits, there is formed a first circular hole at an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot; at least one second circular hole is formed so as to be connected with a portion of the first circular hole which is away from an end of the first circular hole on an opposite side to the slit; and the at least one second circular hole is smaller than the first circular hole.
Nagai teaches a laminated core having a plurality of slits (35), for each of the slits, there is formed a first hole (the left hole of pressing portion 33) at an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot, at least one second hole (the right hole of pressing portion 33) is formed so as to be connected with a portion of the first hole which is away from an end of the first hole on an opposite side to the slit (35) to reduce the bulge of the connecting portion (col 3 ln 59-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki’s stator with plurality of slits, there is formed a first hole at an end of the slit on an opposite side to the corresponding slot; at least one second hole is formed so as to be connected with a portion of the first hole which is away from an end of the first hole on an opposite side to the slit as taught by Nagai. Doing so would reduce the bulge of the connecting portion (col 3 ln 59-60).
Furthermore, Hino in view of Kurosaki and Nagai does not teach the holes are circular hole and the at least one second circular hole is smaller than the first circular hole.
An artisan would have ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the size and shape of the hole to suitable fit with the stator size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hino in view of Kurosaki and Nagai’s stator with the holes are circular hole and the at least one second circular hole is smaller than the first circular hole as recited in the instant invention. Doing so would reduce stator size so that improving manufacturing cost. Furthermore, a change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vohlgemuth (US 2001/0015006 A1) teaches a strip of lamination sectors for making a magnetic circuit of an electrical machine, the sectors are interconnected by links, and the strip is for winding on a mandrel to form a stack of layers of sectors. Said links lie outside the sectors.
Gianni et al. (US 8,941,274 B2) teaches a stator for an electric motor that includes a plurality of stacked laminations and a polymeric shell coupled to the plurality of laminations. Each lamination includes an annular plate having a plurality of notches defined therein. Each notch has an end positioned between the side walls of the annular plate. A plurality of teeth extend from one side wall of the annular plate. Each lamination includes a first slot defined at the first end of each notch and a second slot spaced apart from the first slot, the first slots of the laminations are aligned to define a first plurality of passageways, the second slots of the laminations are aligned to define a second plurality of passageways, and the polymeric shell includes a plurality of support beams that extend through the first plurality of passageways and the second plurality of passageways.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEDA T PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/LEDA T PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834