DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 5, Figures 5A-C, Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement should be made between the claims instead of the figures. This is not found persuasive because claimed species and disclosed species can both be restricted. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added.
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) 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiah et al. (US 2020/0067362) in view of Jung (US 2014/0077636).
In re claim 1, Shiah discloses an electric motor comprising: a rotor (24); a stator comprising a stator core (32) and a winding, the winding comprising a plurality of hairpins (40,90), the plurality of hairpins comprising a plurality of voltage terminals (44,46) and a plurality of neutral terminals (218,230,232); a busbar (busbar is interpreted as being a group of a plurality of structures in the same way as disclosed by the applicant) comprising a plurality of bus pins (111,113) and a neutral bus (52), wherein the plurality of neutral terminals are connected to the neutral bus. Shiah does not disclose a plurality of caps. Jung however teaches a similar device having a plurality of caps (321,322), wherein the plurality of caps comprise a cuboid shape (as best seen in figures 6-7) wherein at least some of the plurality of caps define one or more slots, wherein a plurality of pins are disposed and joined in the slots. 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 adapted cuboid shaped caps as taught by Jung to connect pins and terminals of Shiah to provide a more secure connection.
In re claim 2, Jung discloses that the plurality of caps comprises a hollow cuboid shape. With respect to the press fit process, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. voltage terminals and slots , does not depend on its method of production, i.e. press fit. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 4, Jung discloses that the one or more slots are rectangular slots (as seen in figures 4-7).
In re claim 5, Jung discloses that the caps are formed from an electrical conductor (paragraph 9) but does not explicitly teach copper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used copper to make the conductor of Jung, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 57, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 6, Shiah discloses a three phase electric motor (see paragraph 4).
In re claim 7, Shiah discloses that the plurality of hairpins comprise one or more first-phase hairpins, one or more second-phase hairpins, and one or more third-phase hairpins (see paragraph 27); wherein the one or more first-phase hairpins comprise one or more first-phase voltage terminals and one or more first-phase neutral terminals; wherein the one or more second-phase hairpins comprise one or more second-phase voltage terminals and one or more second-phase neutral terminals; wherein the one or more third-phase hairpins comprise one or more third-phase voltage terminals and one or more third-phase neutral terminals (see paragraphs 28-30 discussing these limitations); wherein the one or more first-phase neutral terminals, the one or more second-phase neutral terminals, and the one or more third-phase neutral terminals are connected to the neutral bus (as discussed in paragraphs 28-30, see last sentence in each paragraph).
In re claim 8, Shiah discloses that the plurality of bus pins comprise one or more first-phase bus pins, one or more second-phase bus pins, and one or more third-phase bus pins (this is best seen in figure 2).
In re claim 9, Shiah in view of Jung discloses that the caps are positioned on terminals and bus pins of each phase (it would have been obvious to have applied the caps to connections of each phase in the combination made in claim 1 rejection in order for the device to function properly).
In re claim 10, Shiah in view of Jung discloses that the winding comprises two hairpins-per-pole-group (joined together by the caps as shown by Jong).
In re claim 11, Shiah in view of Jung discloses that the electric motor comprises a matching number of the plurality of caps for the two hairpins-per-pole- group (as shown by Jung, see figure 7 for best view).
In re claim 13, Jung teaches a four layer winding (see figure 1 showing four layers).
In re claim 14, Shiah discloses a three phase arrangement with each phase having a plurality of layers including first and fourth layer having voltage terminals (as best seen in figure 2).
In re claim 15, Shiah discloses each phase having a one or more inner-radius, bus pins (111, 222, 240), disposed along an inner-radius of the busbar and one or more outer-radius (113, 224, 242) bus pins disposed along an outer-radius of the busbar.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2014/0077636) in view of Shiah et al. (US 2020/0067362).
In re claims 19-20, Jung, in figures 1-7, discloses an inner/outer-radius clamp for an electric motor, comprising: a plurality of caps (321-322), wherein the plurality of caps comprise a cuboid shape, wherein the plurality of caps define one or more slots, wherein a plurality of voltage terminals (213a, 213c) and a plurality of bus pins (213b, 213d) are configured to be disposed in the one or more slots to join the plurality of voltage terminals with the plurality of bus pins (as best seen in figure 7); and an overmold (310) comprising: an arcuate portion (the entire overmold is arcuate, so any portion of the overmold meets this limitation, such as portion 311 and portions above the caps in figure 7); and a plurality of projection portions (portions to the left and to the right of the caps in figure 7); wherein the plurality of projection portions extend radially outward/inward from the arcuate portion; wherein the plurality of projection portions are connected to the caps. Jung does not disclose a three phase arrangement. Shiah however, teaches a similar device having a three phase arrangement (as best seen in figure 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 three phase winding arrangement as taught by Shiah in the device of Jung to provide increased torque.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-18 are 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.
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