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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
There are reference numbers “64” and “72” in the Fig. 2 and in paragraph [0039] in the specification, but there are o description what the reference numbers “64” and “72” are for.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both “a prestressing unit” in Fig. 3 and “a workpiece carrier” in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “74” has been used to designate both “a subsequent opening station” and “the removal station” in paragraph [0039] in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 1: The phrase “having a plurality of electrical sheet laminations coated with Backlack, and” as recited in lines 4-5 appears to be --having a plurality of electrical sheet laminations coated with Backlack; and--.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “to load a workpiece carrier with a semi-finished product” as recited in line 2 appears to be --to load the workpiece carrier with the semi-finished product--.
The phrase “to check a height of a semi-finished product” as recited in line 3 appears to be --to check a height of the semi-finished product--.
The phrase “to close a workpiece carrier” as recited in line 4 appears to be --to close the workpiece carrier--.
The phrase “to warm a semi-finished product” as recited in line 5 appears to be --to warm the semi-finished product--.
The phrase “to open a workpiece carrier, and/or” as recited in line 6 appears to be --to open a workpiece carrier; and/or--.
Re. claim 7: The phrase “a through-opening1” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --a through-opening--.
The phrase “the through-opening1” as recited in line 3 appears to be --the through-opening--.
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 1-12 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.
Re. claim 1: The phrase “bonded over their entire surface” as recited in line 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the “their entire surface” is indicated.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “a removal station for removing a finished product” as recited in line 7 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the finished product is indicated. where is a process for producing a finished product?
The phrase “closing station and/or the heating station are arranged upstream of the heating station” as recited in lines 8-9 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to how the heating station can be arranged upstream of the heating station itself. Clarification is required.
Re. claim 5: the phrase “a distance between the hydraulic system and the workpiece carrier is substantially constant” as recited in lines 2-3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the Fig. 2, the distance between the hydraulic system (80) and the workpiece carrier (20) cannot be the substantially constant. The distance from a top and a bottom sides of the workpiece carriers is longer than the distance from a right and a left side of the workpiece carriers. Clarification is required.
Re. claim 11: The phrase “bonded over their entire surface” as recited in line 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the “their entire surface” is indicated.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR-2019135281 A) in view of Reutter et al. (PGPub 2009/0015093 A), and further in view of Fluch et al. (PGPub 2022/0389281 A1).
Kyu teaches a system for producing laminated cores for an electrical machine, comprising: a workpiece carrier (31, Fig. 2) configured to receive a semi-finished product (1000, Figs. 1-2) having at least two stations including a heating station (40, Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]) configured to heat the semi-finished product and a cooling station (51-53, Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]) providing energy-assisted cooling of the semi-finished product, wherein the at least two stations, are arranged spatially separated from one another and are passed through by the workpiece carrier (see also paragraphs [0036]-[0041]).
However, Kyu silent a defined axial prestressing force applied to the semi-finished product. Reutter et al. teach a system for making an electrical device including a defined axial prestressing force applied to a laminated core (as the semi-finished product) for holding an axially interlocking manner for the laminated core (paragraph [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system for producing laminated cores for an electrical machine of Kyu by a defined axial prestressing force applied to the semi-finished product as taught by Reutter et al. in order to hold an axially interlocking manner for the laminated core.
Also, Kyu, modified by Reutter et al., silent a plurality of electrical sheet laminations coated with Backlack. Fluch et al. teach an apparatus for producing laminated cores for an electrical machine including a plurality of electrical sheet laminations coated with Backlack in order to integrally bond steel sheets to form the laminated core (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system for producing laminated cores for an electrical machine of Kyu, modified by Reutter et al., by a plurality of electrical sheet laminations coated with Backlack as taught by Fluch et al. in order to integrally bond steel sheets to form the laminated core.
Re. claim 6: Kyu also teaches a transport system (30, Fig. 2, paragraph [0042]) for the workpiece carrier.
Re. claim 7: Kyu also teaches that the heating station includues a through-opening along one side thereof, wherein the workpiece carrier comprises a base plate (311, Fig. 8) which at least partially closes the through-opening as shown in Figs. 8-9 (paragraphs [0060]-[0063]).
Re. claim 8: Kyu also teaches that a plurality of workpiece carriers pass through the system simultaneously as shown in Fig. 2.
Re. claim 9: Kyu also teaches a conveyor as the transport system (paragraph [0042]).
Re. claim 10: Kyu also teaches that the cooling station is passed through simultaneously by the plurality of workpiece carriers as shown in Fig. 2.
Re. claim 11: Kyu, modified by Reutter et al. and Fluch et al., teach a process for producing laminated cores as set forth above in claim 1.
Re. claim 12: Kyu also teaches that the semi-finished product is heated in the heating station to a temperature which is in a temperature range around 200°C (paragraphs [0043]-[0044]). Even though Kyu silent a temperature range around 200°C in the heating station, the semi-finished product is heated to a high temperature. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Therefore, since such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining a desirable laminated core.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 5 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.
Claim 4 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 Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsuneyoshi et al. (US PAT. 6,162,184) is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a system having energy delivering thermocouple assemblies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights