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:
FIG. 11, element 70.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7 recites “a third cover installed on an side end”.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite as it recites the limitation “at least one of the side surfaces of the coil base material” in lines 7-8. The limitation “the side surfaces” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous whether the feature is interpreted as:
At least of the side surfaces that features the horizontal slits
The side surfaces that features the inclined slit
A combination of sides including sides featuring the horizontal or inclined slits
As such, it is not clear how the claimed limitation is intended to be interpreted. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been examined, as best understood, to encompass any of the three potential reasonable interpretations noted above. For the same reason, claim 11 which recites the limitation “at least one of the side surfaces”, and all dependent claims 2-10 & 12-13 therefor are rejected as well by virtue of its dependency and recitation of the limiting language.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 & 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (K.R. Patent Application Publication 20190038418 A) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (Title: Manufacturing Method of Coil Unit) a maximum slot occupation (MSO) coil processing apparatus comprising:
a jig (fixing jig 100, p. 3, ll. 28) on which a coil base material (coil block 10, p. 2, ll. 37) is seated, wherein the coil base material has an opening (hollow portion 14, p. 4, ll. 27) formed in a central portion of the coil base material in a vertical direction (FIG. 10 depicts the vertical hollow portion 14 centered in the coil block 10) and is to be processed;
PNG
media_image1.png
313
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a multi-cutter (processing machine 400, p. 7, ll. 6) in which a plurality of blades are stacked (plurality of processing tools 410, p. 7, ll. 7) to form horizontal slits (plane slit 13, p. 7, ll. 1) and inclined slits (slope slit 12, p. 6, ll. 41) on side surfaces of the coil base material seated on the jig (FIG. 17 depicts the slits made by processing machine 400); and
PNG
media_image2.png
421
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a cutting tool (processing machine 400) which processes at least one of the side surfaces of the coil base material to connect the horizontal slits and the inclined slits (connection slit 12a, p. 7, ll. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
524
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the multi-cutter includes:
a first multi-cutter (processing machine 400) in which a plurality of blades (plurality of processing tools 410) configured to form the horizontal slits (plane slit 13) in the side surfaces of the coil base material are stacked (as depicted in FIG. 17); and
a second multi-cutter (processing machine 400) in which a plurality of blades (plurality of processing tools 410) configured to form the inclined slits (slope slit 12) in the side surface of the coil base material are stacked (as depicted in FIG. 16).
PNG
media_image4.png
479
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 8, as detailed above, wherein:
the plurality of blades configured to form the horizontal slits include eight blades (plurality of processing tools 410) which are formed to be stacked in the first multi-cutter (p. 7, ll. 7-8, “The plurality of processing tools 410 are spaced from each other by a predetermined distance, and can process each slit”; FIG. 17 depicts the stacked configuration of blades); and
the plurality of blades configured to form the inclined slits include three blades (plurality of processing tools 410) which are formed to be stacked in the second multi-cutter (p. 7, ll. 7-8, “The plurality of processing tools 410 are spaced from each other by a predetermined distance, and can process each slit”; FIG. 16 depicts the stacked configuration of blades).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the opening formed to have a quadrangular cross section (FIG. 10 depicts a quadrangular cross section) through a drawing or extrusion process (p. 6, ll. 11-12, “the inner hollow portion 14 is formed together in the process of forming the coil block 10, and in this embodiment, the block forming step includes a step of forming a hollow H inward”; p. 9, ll. 6-7, “12 is a view showing a state in which a base material is drawn out”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses (Title: Manufacturing Method of Coil Unit) a maximum slot occupation (MSO) coil processing method comprising:
forming an opening (hollow portion 14, p. 4, ll. 27) having a quadrangular cross section in a central portion of a coil base material (coil block 10, p. 2, ll. 37) in a vertical direction (FIG. 10 depicts the vertical, quadrangular hollow portion 14 centered in the coil block 10);
forming a horizontal slit (plane slit 13, p. 7, ll. 1; and connection slits 12a, p. 7, ll. 2) in three side surfaces among side surfaces of the coil base material (FIGS. 5-6 depict forming of plane and connection slit on side surfaces; FIG. 10 depicts the result) using a multi-cutter (processing machine 400, p. 7, ll. 6) in which a plurality of blades are stacked (plurality of processing tools 410, p. 7, ll. 7);
forming an inclined slit (slope slit 12, p. 6, ll. 41) in a remaining side surface of the side surfaces of the coil base material using the multi-cutter in which the plurality of blades are stacked (FIGS. 3-4 depict forming of sloped slit 12 on one side surface); and
processing at least one of the side surfaces of the coil base material to connect the horizontal slit and the inclined slit (p. 4, ll. 21-23, “the plane slit 13 can be formed over the entire width of the second side surface A .sub.2 , and by adjusting the processing depth, the slope slit 12 of the first side surface A .sub.1 is formed So that both ends of the slope slit 12 and both ends of the plane slit 13 can be connected to each other”).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the method of claim 11, as detailed above, wherein the multi-cutter moves along one path to form the horizontal slit and the inclined slit (FIGS. 16-18 depict arrow path the processing machine 400 follows to create slits).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as detailed above, further discloses the jig (fixing jig 100) including:
PNG
media_image5.png
260
399
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a first jig (second fixing groove 102, p. 3, ll. 31) configured to form the horizontal slits (plane slits 13), on which the coil base material is seated;
PNG
media_image6.png
329
362
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
303
319
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a second jig (first fixing groove 101, p. 3, ll. 31) configured to form the inclined slits (slope slits 12), on which the coil base material is seated; and
PNG
media_image8.png
316
333
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
303
234
media_image9.png
Greyscale
a third jig (third fixing groove 103, p. 31, ll. 3)
However, Lee fails to disclose the third jig configured to connect the horizontal slits and inclined slits on which the coil base material is seated.
Though Lee fails to disclose a separate jig/groove dedicated for the formation of connecting slits, Lee does detail that the second fixing groove 102 can also form the connecting slit (p. 4, ll. 212-23, “At this time, the plane slit 13 can be formed over the entire width of the second side surface A .sub.2 , and by adjusting the processing depth, the slope slit 12 of the first side surface A .sub.1 is formed So that both ends of the slope slit 12 and both ends of the plane slit 13 can be connected to each other”).
Lee teaches separately performing the sloped slit in a first groove and plane slits with connecting slits in a second groove. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to similarly separate the plane and connecting slits into their own grooves, as Lee has done separating the sloped and plane slits in their own respective grooves. Furthermore, Lee discloses (p. 4, ll. 21-23) that during the formation of the plane slits, adjustments can be made to the processing depth to reach the sloped slits, forming the connecting slits. In view of this depth adjustment requirement, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to provide separate jigs and a separate processing machine for forming the plane and connecting slits, allowing for machining operations to have independent positioning and control according to their respective processing requirements as well as prevent possible contact between the jig and processing machine, extending the lifetime of both elements.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, and in further view of Park (K.R. Patent Publication 102414606 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as detailed above.
However, Lee fails to disclose the first jig including a first base plate, a first fixing plate, and a first cover.
Park discloses (Title: Spiral Cutting Equipment for MSO Coil) a maximum slot occupation coil processing apparatus (spiral processing apparatus) comprising a jig (fixing part 200, p. 4, ll. 8) that includes:
a first base plate (annotated FIG. 11 above depicts the base plate);
a first fixing plate (fixed chuck 210, p. 4, ll. 8) installed on an upper surface of the first base plate the coil base material (coil base material 100, p. 4, ll. 8) fixed to an upper surface of the first fixing plate (as depicted in FIG. 11); and
a first cover (auxiliary chuck 280, p. 4, ll. 15) installed on an upper end of the first fixing plate to pass through the opening to fix the coil base material to the upper surface of the first fixing plate (as depicted in FIG. 11) (p. 4, ll. 13-15, “the fixed chuck 210 is inserted into the hollow part 110 of the coil base material 100 to fix the coil base material 100”; auxiliary chuck 280 is depicted to also insert into the opening).
PNG
media_image10.png
586
714
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses an apparatus and method for processing a coil, comprising of a jig and plurality of blades stacked to form horizontal, sloped, and connecting slits across a coil base material, using a second groove to hold the base material. Park also discloses of an MSO coil processing apparatus that also comprises of a first base, first fixing plate, and first cover configured to pass through an opening to fix the coil base material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the base, fixing plate, and cover used for fixing a coil base material from Park’s disclosure and apply it to the method and apparatus of Lee’s as it would provide for a more stable fixing of the base material from both ends in the vertical direction (Park, p. 4, ll. 8-15). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as it would provide a rotating means to the base and auxiliary chuck, allowing the processing/cutting machine to operate on non-accessible surfaces of the body due to limitations such as machine interference and small operable spaces.
Regarding claim 4, Lee, in view of Park, further teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as detailed above, and Park further discloses the second jig including:
a second base plate (annotated FIG. 11 above depicts the base plate);
a second fixing plate (fixed chuck 210) installed on an upper surface of the second base plate to be inclined the coil base material (coil base material 100) fixed to an upper surface of the second fixing plate (as depicted in FIG. 11); and
a second cover (auxiliary chuck 280) installed on an upper end of the second fixing plate to pass through the opening to fix the coil base material to the upper surface of the second fixing plate.
However, both Lee and Park fail to disclose a support plate installed on both sides of the second fixing plate and including support legs extending between and supporting the horizontal slits.
Lee further teaches another embodiment wherein a jig (fixing devices 500, p. 7, ll. 42) comprises of a support plate (fixing part 510, p. 8, ll. 2) installed on both sides of the second fixing plate and including support legs (fixing grooves 512, p. 8, ll. 2) extending between and supporting the horizontal slits (p. 8, ll. 2-3, “plurality of fixing grooves 512 for fixing the respective coil layers L of the coil block 10 in the vertical direction”).
PNG
media_image11.png
566
538
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Lee, in view of Park, discloses a jig that includes a base plate, a fixing late, and a cover installed to secure the coil base material during processing of the plane, sloped, and connecting slits. Lee discloses of another embodiment wherein the jig comprises of support plates that have legs that extend between the horizontal slits. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the fixing device 500 as a support plate installed on both sides of the coil base material to assist in the formation of the sloped slits to provide greater support to each individual layer of coil in the vertical direction as the fixing device 500 features fixing grooves 512. More specifically, while still having the side surface exposed [location of sloped slits, as depicted in FIG. 19], having plates that provides support to each layer of the coil during the formation of the sloped slits would prevent layer deformation and vibration of the coil, resulting in accurate cutting results made by the processing machine 400. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as supporting each coil layer would allow for evenly distributed cutting forces across the entire body, composing coil integrity during processing.
(Also refer to the rejection of claim 3, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 4 in the manner of using a base plate, fixing plate, and cover installed to pass through an opening to fix the coil base material during processing).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, in view of Park, teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as detailed above, and Park further discloses the third jig including:
a third base plate (annotated FIG. 11 above depicts the base plate);
a third fixing plate (fixed chuck 210) installed on a side surface of the third base plate to stand upright, the coil base material (coil base material 100) fixed to one surface of the third fixing plate (as depicted in FIG. 11);
Lee further discloses in another disclose support plates (fixing part 510) installed on both sides of the third fixing plate and including support legs (fixing grooves 512) extending between and supporting the horizontal slits (as depicted in FIG. 19); and
a third cover (auxiliary chuck 280) installed on an side end of the third fixing plate to pass through the opening to fix the coil base material to the one surface of the third fixing plate in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction.
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claims 3 & 4, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 5 in the manner of a base plate, fixing plate, and cover plate to fix the coil base material during processing; and providing support plates with legs to provide support to each individual coil layer).
Claims 6-7 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, and in view of Park, and further view of Ishimori et al (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2020027840 A) hereinafter Ishimori.
Regarding claim 6, Lee, in view of Park, teaches the apparatus of claim 4, as detailed above.
However, both Lee and Park fail to further disclose a plurality of support blocks including the support legs are detachably installed in the support plate.
Ishimori discloses (Title: Reactor) wherein a plurality of support blocks (plurality of insulating spacers 13, p. 2, l. 14; and/or second member 132, p. 3, l. 8) including the support legs (first members 131, p. 3, l. 7) are detachably installed in the support plate (holding member 10, p. 2, l. 15; and/or rod-shaped support member 15, p. 2, l. 18) to hold a coil (coils 11, p. 2, l. 13).
PNG
media_image12.png
403
452
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
662
282
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Lee, in view of Park, discloses a second jig comprising of the second base plate, second fixing plate, a second cover, and a support plate that is used to support the coil layers during processing of the sloped slits. Ishimori discloses of a structure that has a holding and supporting member that contain a plurality of insulating spacers, each insulating spacer comprised of a first and second member to hold and space apart each of the coil layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the support plate and support legs from Lee IVO Park’s disclosure and divide it into the supporting structure, as disclosed by Ishimori, to suppress the position of the coil from being shifted due to vibrations (Ishimori, p. 3 , ll. 4-42). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA using the insulating spacers from Ishimori’s disclosure allows an operator to alter the amount of space provided between each of the layers of coil by replacing the second member 132 element for a smaller or longer element in the X-axis (depicted in FIG. 3), allowing for a variety of coil dimensions to be manufactured.
Regarding claim 7, Lee, in view of Park and Ishimori, teaches the apparatus of claim 6, as detailed above, and Ishimori further discloses stepped parts (first and second members 131 & 132, respectively) formed in rear ends of the support blocks to mutually couple the support blocks (col. 3, ll. 9-12, “One end of the first member 131 in the longitudinal direction is located inside the wound coil 11, and the other end is located outside the wound coil 11. The second member 132 has a longitudinal end of one of the first members 131 of the pair of first members 131, and a longitudinal end of the other first member 131 facing the end in the direction of the central axis AX”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 7 in the manner of using a tongue projection and groove formed on the edges of a support block to lock the legs in proper positions to hold the coil).
Regarding claim 13, Lee, in view of Park and Ishimori, teaches the apparatus of claim 5, as detailed above, and Ishimori further discloses a plurality of support blocks (plurality of insulating spacers 13, p. 2, l. 14; and/or second member 132, p. 3, l. 8) including the support legs (first members 131, p. 3, l. 7) are detachably installed in the support plate (holding member 10, p. 2, l. 15; and/or rod-shaped support member 15, p. 2, l. 18).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 13 in the manner of using a tongue projection and groove formed on the edges of a support block to lock the legs in proper positions to hold the coil).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights