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: TRANSPOSITION COILS HAVING A PLURALITY OF CONDUCTOR TURNS HAVING CONFIGURATIONS FOR CONDUCTOR STACKS.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manni et al. (US 3010038).
In claim 1, Manni discloses (Fig. 1-3) a transposition coil comprising: a plurality of conductor turns (2) arranged in at least two separate stacks (12), wherein each of the at least two separate stacks (12) is provided with dedicated main wall insulation (13) that encircles exactly one of the at least two separate stacks (12); and outer main wall insulation (14) that encircles the at least two separate stacks (12).
In claim 3, Manni discloses wherein the plurality of conductor turns (12) are arranged in exactly two stacks (since at least one strand adjacent each side of the ventilating duct is required; Col. 1, ln. 13-30), and wherein the total number of conductor turns is odd (as shown in Fig. 1, there are 35 conductor turns per stack).
In claim 5, Manni discloses wherein the total number of conductor turns is 35.
In claim 13, Manni discloses (Fig. 1-3) a transposition coil comprising: a plurality of conductor turns (2) arranged in three or more separately-insulated stacks (12 via 13), wherein the three or more stacks (12) are cooperatively insulated with an outer main wall insulation (14) that encircles the three or more separate stacks.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manni et al. (US 3010038) in view of Schuler et al. (US 4308476).
In claim 7, Manni teaches the coil of claim 1, with the exception of wherein each conductor turn of the plurality of conductor turns is independently insulated.
However, Schuler teaches (Fig. 1-3) a transposition coil wherein each conductor turn (1) of the plurality of conductor turns (1) is independently insulated (11).
Therefore in view of Schuler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to account for and fill irregular gaps in the structure of the windings (Schuler; Col. 1, ln. 35-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8-12, and 14-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the (in)dependent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the (in)dependent claim(s) with the allowable feature being:
Claim 2: “wherein the at least two separate stacks include a first stack having n number of turns and a second stack having n+1 number of turns or n-1 number of turns.”
Claim 4: “wherein the total number of conductor turns is 27.”
Claim 6: “wherein a width of each conductor of the plurality of conductors is less than or equal to approximately 10 millimeters, and wherein a height of each conductor of the plurality of conductors is greater than or equal to approximately 0.5 millimeters.”
Claim 8: “wherein the plurality of conductor turns are arranged in exactly three separate stacks.”
Claim 11: “wherein the total number of conductor turns is 34.”
Claim 12: “wherein the total number of conductor turns is 36.”
Claim 14: “wherein the number of turns per stack is different among the three or more separate stacks.”
Claim 16: “wherein the plurality of conductor turns are arranged in exactly three stacks, and wherein the total number of conductor turns is odd.”
Claim 18: “wherein the total number of conductor turns is 34.”
Claim 19: “wherein the total number of conductor turns is 36.”
Claim 20: “wherein a width of each conductor of the plurality of conductors is less than or equal to approximately 10 millimeters, and wherein a height of each conductor of the plurality of conductors is greater than or equal to approximately 0.5 millimeters.”
The examiner found no prior art satisfies all above conditions by itself or as combined during the prosecution period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ringland et al. (US 2821641) teaches a strand transposition structure of a coil.
Conley et al. (US 2017/0033631) teaches a method for Roebel transposition of form wound conductors for electrical machines is disclosed which creates less distortion of strand geometry and more efficiently stacks the conductor strands.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834