DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/548,180, filed on 28 August, 2023, were presented for examination. In a preliminary amendment also filed 28 August, 2023, new claims 16-19 were added. In the response filed 20 January, 2026, new claim 20 was added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 August, 2026, has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 August, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-9, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as anticipated by and/or obvious over Makhlouki, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that claims 1, 10, and 20 were amended to overcome claim objections and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that said objections/rejection are overcome. The Examiner concurs, those objections and that rejection are withdrawn.
Moving to the arguments concerning the rejections of claims 1-9, 16-18, and 20, which were, and still are, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as anticipated by and/or obvious over Makhlouki, Applicant quickly summarizes claim 1 and cites two limitations, specifically “a bundle portion connected to the first and second legs of the electrical conductor in each case by an oblique portion” and “the two oblique portions being in the form of a helical portion”.
Applicant then moves onto the Examiner’s rejection and arguments, focusing momentarily on a “proof” wherein the Examiner attempted to “establish the helical character” by noting that the strands’ order was inverted. This “proof” was part of the Examiner’s attempt to explain his reasoning and it is not important here, since the actual point of contention (Makhlouki vs. claim 1) that is important was not addressed by the arguments, except perhaps peripherally – this important contention being where exactly the helical oblique portion transitions into the bundle portion.
In the fourth paragraph under “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102” in the response, Applicant submits that the Examiner has not identified where in Makhlouki ‘a “helical portion” is actually disclosed’. The Examiner’s counter is that claim 1 recites “two oblique portions being in the form of a helical portion” such that when he labels the “oblique portions” (in the fig. 7 excerpt) he is inherently labeling the “helical portions”.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beginning on the fifth paragraph under “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102” in the response, and continuing for another page, Applicant focuses on a “curvature” feature of Makhlouki. Whether this curvature exists in the reference or not, it is not claimed so the arguments are not really germane to the allowability of claim 1. Nonetheless the Examiner will try to address them. It seems that Applicant believes that if the oblique portions of Makhlouki are curved with the curvature of the stator, no portion of them could also be helical. Or perhaps Applicant believes that the portions of Makhlouki that discuss the curvature are what a reader of Makhlouki (or the Examiner) might mistakenly take for a discussion of helical portions. Applicant cites from Makhlouki and discusses an annotated excerpt from fig. 9 to flesh out this arc/curvature feature of Makhlouki and to establish that it is “not a helical portion”. Then Applicant defines “helical portion” as implying “a three-dimensional spiral from where the conductor rotates progressively around an axis…” which is “different from a simple curvature”. The Examiner does not contest these characterizations, and is trying to address all of Applicant’s allegations, but they do not fully get around to addressing the actual rejection and the parts designated in the rejection of claim 1 in the prior Office Action and below.
All of the arguments vis-à-vis Makhlouki simply ignore or disregard what the prior Office Action laid out very simply. So, the Examiner will try to reset the conversation around what he believes to be the main issue that needs to be resolved before claim 1 can be allowed. The Examiner believed that the fig. 7 excerpt (above), with the labels he added, was sufficient to locate the oblique portions which are helical, but since it is required that Applicant address head-on the actual evidence the Examiner has drawn from Makhlouki, new excerpts with more detail have been added (below) to aid the discussion.
There are multiple ways to view Makhlouki with respect to claim 1, as follows. In all of them, there are intermediate portions (see excerpts of figs. 2 and 7 below) between an apex and the legs. As Applicant has not staked out a position on where the oblique portions begin and end, which is the only thing that matters here (to compare the reference to claim 1), the Examiner will begin by laying forth a hypothetical first interpretation (I) and hypothetical second interpretation (II). In both interpretations Makhlouki’s conductor, in the area between each respective leg and the apex, has an intermediate portion [Int] (referring now to the joint excerpt of figs. 2 and 7 below) between each of the legs and the apex.
In the first interpretation (I), which the Examiner believes is how Applicant is interpreting Makhlouki based on the overall gist of the arguments, the only portion of the intermediate portion [Int] that can be considered the oblique portion is the flat portion [F].
PNG
media_image2.png
289
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although this is not claimed and is excessively restrictive, the Examiner has used a passage from Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claim 4 to come to this view, although Applicant does not put it forth in the arguments concerning claim 1 – to quote, ‘Under claim 1, the “bundle portion” must encompass the full portion of the conductor where the transposition of the strands takes place… …the bundle portion cannot be limited to a small segment at the apex of the U-shaped portion… …it must include the full portion over which the strand order is inverted”. In interpretation (I), therefore, the bundle portion corresponds to portion B1 in the excerpt above. As the reference is owned by Applicant, the Examiner accepts their assertions the flat portion F is not helical.
However, in the other interpretation (II), the intermediate region [Int] includes a flat portion [F] and an oblique portion [O], with the bundle portion being represented by [B2]. Yes, the flat portion [F] is also oblique, but the claim does not preclude this.
PNG
media_image2.png
289
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this interpretation (II), Makhlouki anticipates claim 1’s limitations “a bundle portion connected to the first and second legs of the electrical conductor in each case by an oblique portion, the two oblique portions being in the form of a helical portion” – here the bundle portion is connected to the second legs by an oblique portion and an oblique flat portion. The claim does not preclude the existence of the oblique flat portion. The Examiner tried to make this obvious in the prior Office Actions but Applicant persistently focuses on other matters. If claim 1 is to advance toward allowability, this is the matter that must be resolved, and it is complicated by Applicant’s new argument, already cited above, from the most recent response, wherein Applicant attempts to establish that the “bundle portion must encompass the full portion of the conductor where the transposition of the strands takes place”. This seems reasonable except it creates a new interpretation (III) wherein there are no helical portions, because since the helical portions (of the instant application) are helical, they inherently are contributing to the transposition taking place, making them de facto constituents of the bundle portion, which contradicts claim 1 outright.
Both Makhlouki and the invention of the instant application have regions/transitions between the legs and the apex wherein the helix/transposition transition from oblique portions to a bundle portion, which is, by the way, also helical, and claim 1 does not identify the boundary of where this is. The Examiner can find little substantive arguments for interpretation (I), which would be necessary to distinguish claim 1 from Makhlouki. A firm argument can be found in the response to establish the bundle portion [interpretation (III)] but it attributes to said bundle portion (discussed in the previous paragraph) all of the conductor portion wherein the transposition takes place, which, since the helical portions also transpose the conductor, means the completed helix is all bundle portion and nowhere helical portion.
More questions arise, such as, since the oblique portions are helical and the bundle portion is helical too, is the latter more twisted than the former? If so, where is the inflection point? Are the helical portions part of the transposition? Claim 1 per se does not help a person of ordinary skill in the art resolve these considerations, and therefore it cannot be compared to prior art or an infringing device in any meaningful way, except in a broadest reasonable interpretation, which includes interpretation (II), discussed above, and results in anticipation by Makhlouki.
The arguments against the rejection of claim 4 are addressed now but they really bear on the rejection of claim 1. Applicant again in addressing claim Makhlouki vis-à-vis claim 4 attempts to define the bundle portion, and alleges that the Examiner’s identification of the bundle portion is restrictive and artificially reduces its length. But that is exactly what needs to be established, via amendment to claim 1, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art can tell where the helical portion ends and the bundle portion begins. Claim 1 does not establish this, such that the Examiner’s interpretation (II) above is still a proper characterization of Makhlouki, and since claims 1 and 4 do not establish the transition between bundle portion and helical portion, the location of the bundle-oblique boundary is open to arbitrary assignation. Because claim 1 does not restrict the bundle portion to a measurable length, claim 4 and the arguments against its rejection cannot be reasonably dealt with.
In an attempt to minimize the prosecution going forth, the Examiner offers the suggestion that there should be a way to claim that the oblique portion extends all the way to the legs and is fully helical. It is likely that an Examiner Interview would be advantageous to advance prosecution, and the Examiner would be open to considering multiple proposed amendments, if sent prior to the interview.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 August, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 10-15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Meyer (WO 2015180811 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 8-9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makhlouki (WO 2020/174179 A1, provided in a prior Office Action with machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Makhlouki teaches a stator [2] of a rotary electric machine (see title), comprising a stator mass [25] comprising slots [notches 21] (see ¶ 0176 of the provided translation), electrical conductors [22] accommodated in the slots [21], the stator [2] comprising two electrical conductors [22] per slot [21] (see the joint annotated excerpt of figs. 1, 9, and 7 attached below – wherein, specifically, the slot “R” has two conductors in it – also, ¶ 0194 recites “a slot comprises two electrical conductors of different phases” – it is noted that most of the conductors in fig. 9 have been removed, but it is clear from the disclosure that when all the conductors are assembled in the slots, there will be two per slot),
PNG
media_image3.png
434
1316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least a part of the electrical conductors [22], being U-shaped (see fig. 7 excerpt and ¶ 0196), comprising several strands [32] (see ¶ 0194 which recites “each electrical conductor comprises three strands 32”), each of the U-shaped electrical conductors [22] comprising:
- first and second legs [22e and 22f, respectively] (still referring to the excerpt of figs. 7 and 9 above) comprising said strands and being intended to extend axially in a first slot A [first notch A] and a second slot R [return notch R], respectively, of the stator [2] (see ¶ 0197), the strands [32] of the first leg [22e] being arranged in the first slot [A] in a radially inverse order to the strands [32] of the second leg [22bf] in the second slot [R] (in fig. 14, they appear 1-2-3 in slot A from top-to-bottom and 3-2-1 in slot R – the Examiner has circumscribed and labeled the legs 22e/22f to correspond fig. 14 to fig. 9 – see also ¶ 0198),
PNG
media_image4.png
345
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
- a bundle portion connected to the first and second legs [22e/22f] of the electrical conductor in each case by an oblique portion (see new fig. 7 excerpt below wherein the Examiner has labeled the bundle portion and the oblique portions),
PNG
media_image1.png
383
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- the two oblique portions being in the form of a helical portion (visible in fig. 7 as well is in fig. 9).
With respect to claim 2/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, further wherein the electrical conductors comprising three strands [32] (see ¶ 0194 which recites “each electrical conductor comprises three strands 32” – it is noted that the claim only requires three strands for the stator, not for each conductor, so almost all of the references cited in PTO Form 892 actually teach this limitation).
With respect to claim 3/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein said strands [32] have a first thickness and said U-shaped electrical conductors [22] have a second thickness (B) at the bundle portion (see enlarged snapshot of fig. 7 below) which is substantially equal to the first thickness.
PNG
media_image5.png
134
296
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bundle portion has a length (C) measured between the two oblique portions which is less than 3D, where D is a median pitch (the examiner has enlarged a snapshot of fig. 9 and annotated it below with the relevant dimensions – although not described as drawn to scale, it is clear from fig. 9 that the length C of the bundle portion is approximately equal to the median pitch D, i.e. C = D, such that it is safe to say that C < 3 * D) corresponding to a gap between two consecutive slots of the stator (see rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
PNG
media_image6.png
447
731
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bundle portion has a length (C) measured between the two oblique portions (using the length “C” from the fig. 9 enlarged excerpt above) which substantially corresponds to a sum of a width of one of said strands added to a median pitch (D), which corresponds to a gap between two consecutive slots of the stator (as mentioned above in the rejection of claim 4, the length C is approximately D, so C necessarily “substantially corresponds” to the sum of D and another value – for instance, if the stator’s dimensions were doubled, D and C would both double together, regardless of the width of a strand).
With respect to claim 8/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the electrical conductors accommodated in the slots form a set of electrical conductors of the stator, the set of electrical conductors having an outer diameter, defined relative to an axis of the stator by the bundle portions of the U-shaped electrical conductors, (labeled “D1” by the Examiner in the annotated fig. 9 excerpt attached below – the Examiner’s annotations use the corresponding radii because the bottom of the stator is not shown in fig. 9) which is smaller than an outer diameter of the slots plus 0 to 6 times a thickness of one of the strands {the examiner has drawn and labeled a diameter/radius “D2”, which corresponds to (ODslot + 0 * Tstrand) and “D3”, which roughly corresponds to (ODslot + 6 * Tstrand) – even though the figure is not described as being drawn to scale, it is incontrovertible that D1 is smaller than D3, which meets the limitation of the claim – see various rejections of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – although the claim is indefinite, the Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the center of the bundle portion is within the toroidal swath defined by the slot inner diameter and the slot outer diameter plus a margin}.
PNG
media_image7.png
473
709
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9/1, Makhlouki teaches a rotary electric machine (see title which recites “stator for a rotating electric machine”) comprising a stator (see abstract) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a rotor {see ¶ 0140 and 0143-0145, as well as ¶ 0174 which recites “a stator 2 of a rotary electric machine 1 also including a rotor (not shown)”}.
With respect to claim 16/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bundle portion has a length (C) measured between two oblique portions which is less than 2D, where D is a median pitch (the Examiner has recycled the enlarged snapshot of fig. 9 from the rejection of claim 4, and added an approximate dimension for 2D, in gray – although not described as drawn to scale, it is clear from fig. 9 that the length C of the bundle portion is approximately equal to the median pitch D, i.e. C = D, such that it is safe to say that C < 2 * D) corresponding to a gap between two consecutive slots of the stator (see rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
PNG
media_image8.png
449
735
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the electrical conductors accommodated in the slots form a set of electrical conductors of the stators having an outer diameter, defined by the bundle portions (labeled “D1” by the Examiner in the annotated fig. 9 excerpt attached below – the Examiner’s annotations use the corresponding radii because the bottom of the stator is not shown in fig. 9) of the U-shaped conductor, which is smaller than an outer diameter of the slots plus 0 to 4 times a thickness of one of the strands {the examiner has drawn and labeled a diameter/radius “D2”, which corresponds to (ODslot + 0 * Tstrand) and “D3”, which corresponds to (ODslot + 4 * Tstrand) – even though the figure is not described as being drawn to scale, it is incontrovertible that D1 is smaller than D3, which meets the limitation of the claim – see various rejections of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – although the claim is indefinite, the Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the center of the bundle portion is within the toroidal swath defined by the slot inner diameter and the slot outer diameter plus a margin}.
PNG
media_image9.png
470
713
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5, 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhlouki.
With respect to claim 5/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bundle portion has a height (H) relative to the first and second legs [22e/22f], said height (H) being measured between the top of the legs intended to extend axially in the slots and the top of the bundle portion.
Makhlouki omits explicit teaching of a value or range for H1 being less than 70 mm.
However, Makhlouki discloses a range for the rotor outer diameter in ¶ 0143 as having as a lower limit 100 mm. The Examiner has annotated an excerpt from fig. 1 of Makhlouki to show H1 and also the diameter of the rotor compartment, which he has labeled Drotor. It is noted that the rough ratio of H1/Drotor is approximately 0.28 from the drawings, which puts H1 at 28 mm for Drotor = 100 mm.
PNG
media_image10.png
583
679
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, the reference does not state that the drawings are to scale. Nonetheless, if a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art were to attempt to make the stator of Makhlouki using the drawings, written description, and dimensional ranges provided in Makhlouki, he or she would naturally attempt to recreate the device, absent an actual list of dimensional specifications obtained from Makhlouki et al. themselves, by hewing as closely to the available information as possible. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device of Maklouki with a height value H1 of approximately 28 mm, which is within the claimed range of less than 70 mm, in order to avail of the various advantages advertised in Makhlouki, including a reduction in losses by induced current (Makhlouki ¶ 0016).
It is further noted that the conductors on the other end (bottom in fig. 1) of the stator are described in ¶ 0059 as being “less than 40 mm, for example about 27 mm…” Winding heads on both ends of a stator are, typically in the motor arts, generally similar to each other in length (distance from the legs/slots to the tips). This is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would make H1 substantially identical to or within a few millimeters of 27 mm, which is less than the claimed range of 70 mm, in order to have the same amount of winding material on both ends of the stator, such that their electrical resistances are minimized while also keeping the amount of conductor material to a minimum.
With respect to claim 7/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein said rotary machine comprising a rotor, wherein the first leg [22e] is arranged closer to a central opening of the stator than is the second leg [22f].
PNG
media_image11.png
306
453
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Makhlouki omits explicitly teaching that the rotor, which was provided in ¶ 0174 as a “rotor (not shown)”, is actually in the central space within the stator.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the rotor within the central space (the Examiner has accordingly labeled this space the “rotor space” in the fig. 9 excerpt above) because the slots are on the inner surface of the stator, such that locating the rotor in the “rotor space” would allow the rotor to spin inside the rotor while extending very close to the stator near every slot during all operating states, creating what is called in the art an air gap, thereby optimizing the machine’s material and volume in a manner very well known in the art. In this configuration, the first leg would be closer to the rotor than the second leg is.
With respect to claim 17/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bundle portion has a height (H) relative to the first and second legs [22e/22f] is a height H1.
Makhlouki omits explicit teaching of a value or range for H1 being less than 30 mm.
However, Makhlouki discloses a range for the rotor diameter in ¶ 0143 as having as a lower limit 100 mm. The Examiner has annotated an excerpt from fig. 1 of Makhlouki to show H1 and also the diameter of the rotor compartment, which he has labeled Drotor. It is noted that the rough ratio of H1/Drotor is approximately 0.28 from the drawings, which puts H1 at 28 mm for Drotor = 100 mm.
PNG
media_image10.png
583
679
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, the reference does not state that the drawings are to scale. Nonetheless, if a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art were to attempt to make the stator of Makhlouki using the drawings, written description, and dimensional ranges provided in Makhlouki, he or she would naturally attempt to recreate the device, absent an actual list of dimensional specifications obtained from Makhlouki et al. themselves, by hewing as closely to the available information as possible. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device of Maklouki with a height value H1 of approximately 28 mm, which is within the claimed range of less than 30 mm, in order to avail of the various advantages advertised in Makhlouki, including a reduction in losses by induced current (Makhlouki ¶ 0016).
It is further noted that the conductors on the other end (bottom in fig. 1) of the stator are described in ¶ 0059 as being “less than 40 mm, for example about 27 mm…” Winding heads on both ends of a stator are, typically in the motor arts, generally similar to each other in length (distance from the legs/slots to the tips). This is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would make H1 substantially identical to or within a few millimeters of 27 mm, which is less than the claimed range of 30 mm, in order to have the same amount of winding material on both ends of the stator, such that their electrical resistances are minimized while also keeping the amount of conductor material to a minimum.
With respect to claim 20/1, Makhlouki teaches the stator of claim 1, and further teaches wherein said strands have a first thickness and said U-shaped electrical conductors [22] have a second thickness (B) at the bundle portion which is greater than the first thickness, with a slight supplement of thickness of said U-shaped electrical conductors due to a deformation (the helical twist) of the U-shaped electrical conductors at the bundle portion (the Examiner has labeled the Bundle Portion and Thicknesses in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 7 below).
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuriyama (US 4,739,643 A) in view of Meyer (WO 2015180811 A1, provided herein with machine translation).
With respect to claim 10, Kuriyama teaches a method for manufacturing an electrical conductor for a stator of a rotary electric machine (see first. 2 lines of abstract and col. 1, lines 6-9), comprising the following steps:
(a) providing a bundle [conductor 1e] of one or more strands [1] (figs. 1 and 5 show multiple strands, figs. 3, 4, and 6 only one show 1 strand) folded into a U;
PNG
media_image12.png
235
368
media_image12.png
Greyscale
the bundle [1e] when folded into a U comprises a bundle portion [nose 1d] and two legs [1c] (“1e” are labeled in figs. 1 and 6 -- see fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 34-42, which include the recitation “a conducting material is cut to a prescribed length and both ends thereof are flattened by rolling, thereby forming a conductor 1e with two leads 1a…. next, as shown in fig. 4, the conductor 1e is bent at approximately its midportion about a round pin 3a which fits into a cap 3b, thereby bending the conductor 1e into roughly the shape of a pine needle and producing a nose 1d”),
(b) separating the two legs [1c] in order to form two rectilinear oblique portions [1b] (oblique portions labeled “1b” in figs. 5 and 6), the separation being carried out in two opposite directions [D1 and D2] parallel to flat surfaces of the strands,
PNG
media_image13.png
217
402
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(c) folding the oblique portions [1b] toward the inside of the oblique portions (the Examiner labeled the arrow that already existed in fig. 6 to show what his interpretation of “toward the inside of the oblique portions” is in this case), so as to form first and second legs [1c] of the electrical conductor [1] each connected to the bundle portion [1d] by a rectilinear oblique portion [1b], the first and second legs [1c] extending parallel to one another.
PNG
media_image14.png
242
622
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Kuriyama does not teach the strands being generally rectangular in shape and comprising two larger width sides forming a flat of the strand and two smaller width sides forming edges of the strand, the strands being folded over their larger width, when seen in cross-section.
Meyer discloses a winding bundle and a method for producing a stator by bending windings/bundles and inserting them into stator slots, and is deemed analogous art.
PNG
media_image15.png
341
918
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Meyer teaches a bundle wherein the strands [S1/S2/S3/S4/S5/S6/S7/S8] being generally rectangular in shape and comprising two larger width sides forming a flat (labeled by the Examiner in the joint annotated excerpt of figs. 3 and 4 attached above) of the strand and two smaller width sides forming edges (also labeled) of the strand, the strands being folded over their larger width (see fig. 3) when seen in cross-section.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the method of Kuriyama, while using the bundle of Meyer, in order to make the stator of Meyer or any stator with windings like Meyers, with non-square strands, which is known in the art. The method of Kuriyama is generic to the type of winding (it variously shows strands in some figures and no strands in other figures) and is not concerned with the shape of the strands. Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art, knowledgeable in the art of bundle-making methods like Kuriyama’s and used to practicing such methods, would in attempting to make the winding of fig. 3 of Meyer, find Kuriyama’s method a long-known and appropriate one, given the similarity of the shapes of the respective bundles.
With respect to claim 11/10, Kuriyama in view of Meyer teaches the method of claim 10, Kuriyama further teaches wherein, during the separation step (b), the bundle [1e] folded into a U-shape is channeled at the apex (by nose block 2a and pin 2b – see new fig. 5 excerpt below) of the U by applying pressure under the bundle in the bottom of the U (col. 1, lines 47-50 recite “the conductors 1e are secured in the coil form 2 by inserting a pin 2b into the nose block 2a so as to pass through the nose 1d of each conductor 1e”).
PNG
media_image16.png
279
495
media_image16.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13/10, Kuriyama in view of Meyer teaches the method of claim 10, Kuriyama further teaches wherein in step (a), the bundle [1/1e] is folded about a shape part [3a] (col. 1, lines 38-42 recite “Next, as shown in fig. 4, the conductor 1c is bent at approximately its midportion about a round pin 3a which fits into a cap 3b”).
PNG
media_image17.png
515
696
media_image17.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14/10, Kuriyama in view of Meyer teaches the method of claim 10, Kuriyama further teaches wherein in step (c), the rectilinear oblique portions [1b] are held (by diagonal blocks 2c), and the first and second legs (only the right leg is shown in fig. 6 below) are held (by straight blocks 2f) in order to fold them inwards (see arrow in fig. 6) relative to the rectilinear oblique portions [1b] (see col. 1, lines 58-68)
PNG
media_image18.png
336
1198
media_image18.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19/10, Kuriyama in view of Meyer teaches the method of claim 10, Kuriyama further teaches wherein in step (a), the bundle [1/1e] is folded about a bending dowel [3a] (col. 1, lines 38-42 recite “Next, as shown in fig. 4, the conductor 1c is bent at approximately its midportion about a round pin 3a which fits into a cap 3b”).
PNG
media_image17.png
515
696
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 2003/0230949 A1) in view of Meyer.
With respect to claim 10, Ogawa teaches a method for manufacturing an electrical conductor [head 31] (see ¶ 0161-0162) for a stator of a rotary electric machine (the abstract recites “a head projecting from a stator core, a pair of legs, and a pair of ends projecting from the stator core”), comprising the following steps:
(a) providing a bundle [31] of one or more strands [conductor segments 300 and 301] folded into a U (see joint annotated excerpts of figs. 25-26, wherein fig. 25 shows the bundle bent “flat” and into a “U”), the bundle [31] when folded into a U comprises a bundle portion (labeled in the excerpts below) and two legs [321 and 322],
PNG
media_image19.png
383
362
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
339
355
media_image20.png
Greyscale
(b) separating the two legs [321/322] in order to form two rectilinear oblique portions (labeled in the fig. 26 excerpt), the separation being carried out in two opposite directions (“twisting directions” shown by arrows and labels in fig. 26) parallel to the flat of the strands (the separation direction is parallel to the direction the flats face – ¶ 0162 recites “conductor segments 300 to 302 before the heads thereof are twisted in the circumferential direction of the core 2, that is, they are spread, so that he first and second legs 321 and 322 of the conductor segments 300 to 302 extend straight from ends of the head 31, respectively),
(c) folding back the oblique portions inwards (see “folded back here” label the Examiner has drawn -- inward directions are opposite to the twisting directions in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 26 below), so as to form first and second legs [321/322] of the electrical conductor [31] each connected to the bundle portion by a rectilinear oblique portion, the first and second legs [321/322] extending parallel to one another (see ¶ 0162-0163 – the folding step is clear from the fig. 25-26 chronology – before the movement of the rings 1000/1001, the conductor is flat, and after, it is bent at these locations, such that the folding step has been accomplished).
PNG
media_image21.png
343
378
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Ogawa does not teach the strands being generally rectangular in shape and comprising two larger width sides forming a flat of the strand and two smaller width sides forming edges of the strand, the strands being folded over their larger width, when seen in cross-section.
Meyer discloses a winding bundle and a method for producing a stator by bending windings/bundles and inserting them into stator slots, and is deemed analogous art.
PNG
media_image15.png
341
918
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Meyer teaches a bundle wherein the strands [S1/S2/S3/S4/S5/S6/S7/S8] being generally rectangular in shape and comprising two larger width sides forming a flat (labeled by the Examiner in the joint annotated excerpt of figs. 3 and 4 attached above) of the strand and two smaller width sides forming edges (also labeled) of the strand, the strands being folded over their larger width (see fig. 3) when seen in cross-section.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the method of Ogawa, while using the bundle of Meyer, in order to make the stator of Meyer or any stator with windings like Meyers, with non-square strands, which is known in the art. The method of Ogawa is generic to the type of winding (it doesn’t even show the strands, but clearly it has them inside the bundles) and is not concerned with the shape of the strands. Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art, knowledgeable in the art of bundle-making methods like Ogawa’s and used to practicing such methods, would in attempting to make the winding of fig. 3 of Meyer, find Ogawa’s method a long-known and appropriate one, given the similarity of the shapes of the respective bundles.
With respect to claim 12/10, Ogawa in view of Meyer teaches the method of claim 10, Ogawa further teaches wherein the bundle portion is not grasped during the separation step (b) (see figs. 25-26, the bundle protrudes above the rings 1000/1001 during the entire process, being un-grasped and also supported only by its attachment at the top of the legs).
With respect to claim 15/10, Ogawa in view of Meyer teaches the method of claim 10, Ogawa further teaches an additional step of (d) curving the oblique portions, according to a contour of the stator (¶ 0162 recites “conductor segments 300 to 302 before the heads thereof are twisted in the circumferential direction of the core 2, that is, they are spread…”), the oblique portions becoming a helical portion (labeled in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 26 attached below – the strand rises flat from the first leg and by the time it reaches the second leg, its plane has inverted, without there being any discontinuous or linear shift in said plane).
PNG
media_image22.png
543
640
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
New references have been added to PTO Form 892. One is Meyer, discussed above, and the other one is JP 2011072052 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
