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.
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 20 January, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the prior art rejections begin at the top of page 9. Arguing against the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Makhlouki, Applicant begins with pointing out the bundle portion, first and second legs, and oblique portions which connect the bundle portion to the first and second legs, with respect to fig. 8 of the instant application.
In the last paragraph of page 9, Applicant characterizes Makhlouki’s conductors by renaming their elements to have different names from those used in the claims, the same nomenclature relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection to show that Makhlouki teaches claim 1. In particular, Applicant calls the feet [22b] of Makhlouki “oblique portions” at the ends of the legs.
The paragraph ends with reference to an embodiment (fig. 11) of Makhlouki that was not relied upon in the rejection so it will not be discussed, as discussing it distracts from the root issues of the rejection, argument, and counter-argument.
The first paragraph of page 10 alleges that Makhlouki does not have a “bundle portion” as required by claim 1. The Examiner showed in the First Office Action that Makhlouki does have a bundle portion. In fig. 7 it is the center of the top portion (the portion running from one slot of the stator to another) in the general area where the helix has traced out half its twist and where the conductor forms planar vertical surfaces where for instance a person could grip it between their thumb and forefinger in a comfortable way. Neither the claim nor the line of argumentation attempts to define the bundle portion in a way that defines over this segment of Makhlouki’s conductors. The Examiner has pasted an annotated fig. 7 excerpt below.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second paragraph of page 10 describes alleged detriments that Makhlouki might or might not have during manufacture or use and this is not related to the claim or the evidence. The second paragraph does, however, conclude by alleging that Makhlouki neither teaches nor suggests “two oblique portions being in the form of a helical portion”, which is required by claim 1. Fig. 7 clearly shows the oblique portions (labeled by the Examiner above) and the proof that the helical portions exist is that during its traverse from one leg [22e] to the other leg [22f], the top portion’s array of wires is reversed, such that the strands’ order has been inverted.
The Examiner points out, again, that in the first paragraph of page 10, Applicant calls the feet [22b] of Makhlouki the “oblique portions” apparently such that, if a reader were to classify these items as oblique portions, the reader would not also be mentally capable of and/or licensed to call the “oblique portions” labeled by the Examiner oblique portions too. The Examiner has labeled them such because they are oblique and they are portions, and this line of counter-argument must proceed without another reference to the feet [22b] of Makhlouki, firstly because the feet are not part of the claim, and especially since Applicant didn’t feel they were relevant enough to include them in the drawings of this application.
In the paragraph closing out page 10, Applicant further discusses Makhlouki by citing ¶ 0201, and then at the top of page 11 uses this to allege that Makhlouki discloses neither oblique portions (even though the Examiner pointed them out in fig. 7), nor a helical portion, apparently due to some “curvature” in ¶ 0201. This curvature and ¶ 0201 do not appertain to the claim language, the rejection, or the argument apropos the oblique portions.
The rejection was based on fig. 7 and the Examiner’s labeled portions that anticipate the relevant clauses of the claim. This characterization of the conductor should be easy to understand because fig. 7’s conductor looks remarkably similar to the conductors shown in fig. 3 of the instant application.
The burden on Applicant in the most recent response was mainly to show that fig. 7 does not have the elements that the Examiner alleged it had, yet the response did not counter the rejection by showing that the claimed bundle portion and oblique portions are distinct over Makhlouki, nor did it amend the claim to define the bundle portion and/or the oblique portions in a way that defines over Makhlouki.
Still, the Examiner in attempting to extract the gist of Applicant’s arguments will focus back on the first paragraph of page 10, which alleges that Makhlouki does not have a bundle portion connected to the legs by oblique portions. Since the Examiner showed that it does teach this, and the Examiner is looking for an argument against the rejection itself, all he is able to find is the next sentence alleging that the legs depend directly from a U-shaped portion (22d) with oblique portions (22b) at the ends of the legs. The only impression the Examiner can take from this is that the Applicant believes that calling something else “oblique portions” proves or makes a case that some other portion of the conductor cannot be oblique and thereby be called an oblique portion.
The MPEP is very generous in establishing that Applicant can use almost any nomenclature they wish, and find most advantageous, to pen a claim. However, this generosity is inherently conditioned on the permission for the Office to use those words, within reason, when item-matching a reference to said claim regardless of what nomenclature the prior art uses. The Examiner is doing so in good faith and finds no substantive arguments against his position. Switching these words around or slapping them on some extraneous item in the reference does not eliminate the fact that the claimed elements are indeed taught by the reference.
Applicant addresses the rejection of claim 4 at the bottom of page 11. The Examiner acknowledged that Makhlouki does not teach the mathematical relationship. Applicant appropriately cites MPEP Section 2125 which basically holds that when a reference does not say its figures are to scale, the drawings should not be used to establish dimensions. However, the dimensional relationships claimed in claim 4 are gross, not fine, ratios/proportions. A patent that shows a car whose wheel (in the patent drawing) diameter is 1/6 the length of the car does not equate to evidence that the actual car’s wheel diameter is 1/6 the length of the car. But anyone alive knows that the wheel diameter of the actual car will be less than 1/4 and more than 1/10 the length of the car. This logic is even more appropriate with motors, where in particular when working with this type of motor, a person of ordinary skill in this art is a specialist in slotted-stators. Said person of ordinary skill in the art, having seen hundreds of this type of stator and also seen them depicted in literature and manuals, while observing fig. 9 would grasp that fig. 9 is within a reasonable margin of error a very accurate depiction of the actual apparatus. Fig. 9 is not a block or hand-drawn drawing. The bundle portion length [C] is clearly about the same as the medium pitch [D] and therefore is less than 3*D. There is no interpretation of fig. 9 wherein the bundle portion (of the actual device) could extend across more than three intra-slot distances, because it is shown in fig. 9 as extending across about one intra-slot distance.
The first paragraph of page 12 alleges the U-shaped portion is not analogous to the Applicant’s bundle portion. The Examiner believes that some misinterpretation has taken place and requests Applicant to look again at the excerpts of figs. 7 and 9 – the Examiner labeled a small portion of conductor [22], which is U-shaped in general, the “bundle portion”. Applicant alleges the Examiner arbitrarily selected a section of the U-shaped portion of the reference to meet his definition. Perhaps this takes place in other prosecutions but in this one the Examiner obediently adhered to the structure/scheme shown in the drawings of the instant application, and did not even use a broad interpretation. The geometries of the conductors (fig. 3 of this application vs. fig. 7 of Makhlouki) being nearly identical, there was no need to use such a recourse. Lastly in dealing with the arguments against the rejection of claim 4, there is one final argument to address here (again in said first paragraph of page 12). Applicant alleges that the length of the U-shaped portion 22d of the Makhlouki conductor is the full distance between the top ends of the legs. Since the U-shaped portion is not part of claim 4, the Examiner agrees with this characterization but it does not further the case against the rejection.
The argument against the rejections of claims 6 and 16 are just a summary of the arguments against the rejection of claim 4, because the claims are identical (except for intervening claims). Thus the counter-argument is identical, and will not be repeated.
Moving on to the bottom of page 12 and the arguments against the rejection of claims 10-11, 13-14, and 19 as anticipated by Kuriyama. First Applicant characterizes Kuriyama by summarizing its method and then on page 13 Applicant characterizes and quotes citations from the instant application, clearly referring to the relevant steps and features of claim 10. The Examiner follows the explanations and understands that this is meant to support the designation of sides in claim 10, which point is gotten around to when claim 10 is explicitly discussed in the second paragraph of page 14.
Applicant asserts that claim 10 has been amended such that step (a) includes wherein the strands are “folded about the large sides”, and Applicant reminds the Office that step (b) already has the legs “separated in opposite directions parallel to the flat of the strands”.
The Examiner’s counter-argument is simply that although he understands the designations and explanations provided by Applicant in the response, claim 10 in using the words” large” and “small” to describe the sides does not compare their width or breadth to another object or each other. Each side is large when compared to an individual wire of the strand and small when compared to the overall size of the conductor. There is evidence in fig. 4 that establishes that the small and large sides of Kuriyama correspond to those of claim 10 even if the claim did firmly establish that one side is larger than another, but even though figs. 5-6 do not clearly depict this, and in spite of fig. 4 Applicant seems to be alleging that Kuriyama is not teaching two sides being larger than the other two sides – however, whether Kuriyama is teaching two sides larger than two other sides, the claim as currently amended falls short of requiring that relationship of the prior art.
Most of page 15 deals with whether Kuriyama could be modified but the Kuriyama rejection was one of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, such that these arguments are moot.
The bottom of page 15 begins the argument against the rejection of claims 10, 12, and 15 as anticipated by Ogawa.
Applicant lays out how Ogawa bends the strands, and then alleges that Ogawa does not teach or suggest step (b) of claim 10 which requires “separating the two legs in order to form two rectilinear oblique portions, the separation being carried out in two opposite directions parallel to the edge of the strand...” In the annotated excerpt of fig. 26 below, the Examiner has added new labels for the flats and edges of the strands.
PNG
media_image2.png
457
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The directional arrows in fig. 26, which refer to the directions of separation during the separating of the legs, are parallel to the flats (they are along the same axis the flats face). Thus, the claim still reads on Ogawa.
Concerning formal matters, Applicant asserts that the claim amendments overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 posed during the First Office Action. The Examiner concurs, they have been overcome. Applicant also asserts that the amended title should overcome the objection to the specification. The Examiner concurs, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The article “a” should be inserted into line 8 between “in” and “first” such that the limitation reads “in a first slot A…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “a flat” in line 4 should be changed to “flats” because there are two large sides forming flats – the specification does not provide evidence for two large sides forming a single flat.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
The claim recites “with a slight supplement…” in lines 3-4. The claim does not establish what has the slight supplement or what the supplement might be of or to. Fig. 8, understood best by lines 22-29 of page 6, shows a “supplement” as reference character “e”. It is clear that this supplement “e” is a gap between conductors and not a growth or enlargement of a strand or conductor.
A reader cannot firmly establish what has the “slight supplement” as it is introduced without a subject which it modifies – it could be the strands, the conductors, the first thickness, or the second thickness. The Examiner is further having trouble simply figuring out what it is – if it is a gap, how can it relate to the thickness B?
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 by Applicant in the IDS, but provided again herein with machine translation, in which the Office-provided translation will be used).
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 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 connectors 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, 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
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuriyama (US 4,739,643 A).
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, each strand being rectangular in shape and comprising two large sides forming flats of the strand and two small sides forming edges of the strand (see fig. 4), the strands [1] being folded about the large sides when seen in cross-section,
PNG
media_image10.png
341
461
media_image10.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 the flat of the strands (flats labeled by the Examiner in the annotated fig. 5 excerpt attached below, wherein the Examiner has also drawn and labeled the directions D1/D2 – col. 1, lines 42-57 include the recitation “the two bundles of conductors 1e are bent outward outwards in opposite directions as shown by the arrows in FIG. 5 until they contact the diagonal blocks 2c” – it is noted that the reference drawing actually omits the arrows mentioned, so the Examiner drew them),
PNG
media_image11.png
250
421
media_image11.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_image12.png
242
622
media_image12.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11/10, Kuriyama teaches the method of claim 10, and 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_image13.png
279
495
media_image13.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13/10, Kuriyama teaches the method of claim 10, and 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_image14.png
515
696
media_image14.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14/10, Kuriyama teaches the method of claim 10, and 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_image15.png
336
1198
media_image15.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19/10, Kuriyama teaches the method of claim 10, and 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_image14.png
515
696
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (US 2003/0230949 A1).
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”), each strand being generally rectangular in shape and comprising two large sides forming flats (the Examiner has labeled the large sides / flats and the short sides / edges of the strand in the excerpts) of the strand and two small sides forming edges of the strand, the strands [300/301] being folded about the large sides when seen in cross-section, 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_image16.png
436
891
media_image16.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_image17.png
459
601
media_image17.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12/10, Ogawa teaches the method of claim 10, and 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 teaches the method of claim 10, and 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_image18.png
543
640
media_image18.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_image19.png
583
679
media_image19.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_image20.png
306
453
media_image20.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_image19.png
583
679
media_image19.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 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).
PNG
media_image21.png
370
722
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Makhlouki does not explicitly teach wherein the supplement {please refer to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – the Examiner is just guessing what this supplement might be} is less than 20% of a thickness of one of said strands.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Makhlouki’s device using the views of figs. 7-9 and create a continuous helix, as shown, such that a portion of the supplement becomes the thickness of one of the strands plus 10%, in order to recreate Makhlouki’s device exactly, to avail of its advertised advantages including inverting the order of the strands from one slot to another. Because the conductor has a width of 3 strands and a depth of 1 strand and starts flat before the helix starts (therefore being 1 strand thick at the corners where the oblique portions meet the legs), at some point between flat (1 strand thick) orientation and the fully vertical (3 strands thick), a “supplement” will grow from 1 strand thick to 3 strands thick, at various points being 110% of a strand thickness, at another point being 118% of a strand thickness, etc. – the resulting structure would have the “supplement” at less than 20% on both sides of the center of the bundle portion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights