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 .
This office action is a response to the restriction requirement filed on 6/26/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species A, Sub-Species AA, claims 1, 2 and 4-9, in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination without restriction between Species A and B would not present an undue search burden. That is, both Species A and recite first and second gauge holders and first and second gauge parts. This is not found persuasive because These separate Species A and B would require a separate search each, and some of the disclosed limitations are incompatible with each other and clearly each have different mode of operations functions and effect.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/26/2026.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto et al. (JP-59198853 A) in view of Etxeberria et al. (EP-2821872 A1).
Hamamoto et al. teach a deburring gauge system for a stator, comprising:
a gauge set (Fig. 6) configured to be at least partially inserted into a slot set (2, Fig. 1) of the stator (1), each first gauge part of the gauge set includes a first body having a first cross-sectional shape that corresponds to a second cross-sectional shape (5, Fig. 6) of a respective first slot of the slot set as shown in Fig. 7, the first body of each first gauge part includes an abrasive portion extending along a length of the first body; and a gauge holder (6, Fig. 6) secured to the gauge set (see also abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Hamamoto et al. silent a controller in communication with the gauge holder and configured to: move the gauge holder in a first direction toward the stator so that the abrasive portion of the first body is at least partially inserted into the respective first slot of the slot set of the stator; and move the gauge holder in a second direction away from the stator so that the abrasive portion of the first body is removed from the respective first slot of the slot set of the stator. Etxeberria et al. teach Aa deburring gauge system including a control system such that “the control system (13) configured to control the contact force exerted on the part to be deburred (19) and an electro-spindle (12) configured to incorporate and, in use, make rotate an abrasive element (14), in such a way that the robot (10) is configured so that, in operation, and in respect of a previously programmed theoretical trajectory, it can adapt its trajectory on the basis of the information obtained by means of said scanning system (11) and by means of said control system (23), in such a way that the abrasive element (14) attacks the part (19) with the optimal angle and pressure predefined for each point on the surface of the part (19)” as shown in Figs. 1-4 (see also abstract). Therefore, the control system of Etxeberria et al. is configured to: move the gauge holder in a first direction (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4A) toward the deburred part (19) so that the abrasive portion (14) of the first body is at least partially inserted into the respective first slot of the slot set of the stator; and move the gauge holder in a second direction (Fig. 4B)away from the deburred part so that the abrasive portion of the first body is removed from the respective from the deburred part. 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 a deburring gauge system of Hamamoto et al. by a control system as taught by Etxeberria et al. in order to control the deburring device or robot for deburring or removing a material form a desired part.
Re. claim 2: Hamamoto et al. also teach that the abrasive portion (5, Fig. 4) includes a series of ridges or a removable sandpaper structure.
Re. claim 4: Hamamoto et al. also teach that each first gauge part of the gauge set includes an end extending from the first body, and wherein the end is tapered in the first direction as shown in Figs. 4 and 6.
Re. claim 5: Etxeberria et al. also teach that the controller is configured to move the gauge set in a reciprocating motion when the abrasive portion of the first body is at least partially inserted into the respective portion of the deburred part as shown in Fig. 1.
Re. claim 6: Hamamoto et al. also teach that the first body further includes a non-abrasive portion extending along the length of the first body, and wherein the abrasive portion extends along the length of the first body a first distance and the non-abrasive portion extends along the length of the first body a second distance that is greater than the first distance as shown in Figs. 4 and 7.
Re. claim 7: According to the Fig. 6 of Hamamoto et al., the first cross-sectional shape of each first gauge part of the gauge set appears to be in a circular shape. Since a shape of the slot of the stator core is a round, the gauge part of the gauge set is designed to be a round or circular shape in order to fit the gauge part of the gauge set into the slot of the stator core for deburring. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first cross-sectional shape of first gauge part of the gauge set as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the cross-sectional shape of first gauge part as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. 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 desirable gauge parts of the gauge set. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Hamamoto et al. because the gauge parts as recited in the claimed invention would perform equally well such as deburring the slot of the stator core in Hamamoto et al. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the first cross-sectional shape of first gauge part of the gauge set of Hamamoto et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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 Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KOJIMA (PGPub 2012/0223609 A1), Kapgan (PGPub 2007/0141966 A1), and GAS et al. (PGPub 2023/0268782 A1) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a system deburring from a slot of the stator core.
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