DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant’s reply is noted.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 that HATTORI does not disclose ‘at least one additional winding, being separate from the first winding, that at least partially surrounds a radially outer face of said first winding and the at least one of the stator teeth about which the first winding is wound, and a connecting section electrically connecting the first winding and the at least one additional winding” as claimed in the amended independent claims 1 and 11.
The winding layers of HATTORI are ‘separate’ as broadly claimed and in a manner similar to the disclosed first and additional windings of the instant application. The instant specification fails to define ‘separate’ in a manner to distinguish from the structure of HATTORI; the term ‘separate’ does not appear in the written description. However, to the extent that the first and additional windings (50,60) in the instant application appear to be separate, as seen in Fig. 4, they are situated circumferentially one inside the other. This is the same manner that the layers of HATTORI are separate, and further satisfies the claimed relationships of “at least partially surrounds a radially outer face of said first winding and the at least one of the stator teeth about which the first winding is wound” (see para [0052] “the flat wire 40 in a second layer is wound to lap on the outside of the flat wire 40 in a first layer” and, at least, Fig. 9)
Regarding “connecting section electrically connecting the first winding and the at least one additional winding”, the portions of the flat wire (40) of HATTORI which connect the upper portion of a respective first layer to the upper portion of its surrounding second layer are each a ‘connecting section’ as broadly claimed. The instant specification fails to define ‘connecting section’ in a manner to distinguish from the structure of HATTORI. However, the first and additional windings (50,60) in the instant application are connected by a connecting section (55). As seen in Fig. 4, the connecting section appears to be a contiguous section of wire that bends from one winding to its surrounding winding. This is the same manner that the layers of HATTORI are connected (see annotated Figs. 6A, 8A, and 9, below)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18282001 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘free space’ of claim 9 in the instant application is anticipated by the ‘gap’ of claim 5 in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “separate” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite; ‘separate’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Are the windings separated by vertical, horizontal, circumferential, electrical, or other means?
Claims 2-10 depend from indefinite claim 1
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a connecting section" in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same as the connecting section recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the term “separate” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite; ‘separate’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Are the windings separated by vertical, horizontal, circumferential, electrical, or other means?
Claims 12-19 depend from indefinite claim 11.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HATTORI (US 20190013708; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, HATTORI discloses a stator (20,30) of an axial flux machine (axial gap type brushless motor 1, see para [0036]), comprising:
a plurality of axially protruding stator teeth (24)(see para [0042] and Fig. 5A-5B);
a first winding (first layer) wound about at least one of the stator teeth (24); and
at least one additional winding (the second and/or third layer), separate from the first winding (by virtue of being circumferentially outside the first winding) that at least partially surrounds a radially outer face of said first winding and the at least one of the stator teeth (24) around which the first winding is wound; and a connecting section electrically connecting the first winding and the at least one additional winding. (see annotated Fig. 6A, 8A, and 9 and para [0051]-[0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
649
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
341
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
150
429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 1, wherein
the first winding (26) and the at least one additional winding arranged on a respective one of the stator teeth (24) are electrically connected in series with one another (see Fig. 9 and para [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 2, wherein the first winding (26) and the at least one additional winding arranged radially directly adjacent to one another on the respective one of the stator teeth (24) are electrically in each case connected to one another by [the] connecting section (see Fig. 9 and para [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 1, wherein
the first winding (26) and the at least one additional winding arranged on the respective one of the stator teeth (24) have at least one of a same pitch or a same winding direction (they are wound in the same direction; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 1, wherein
the first winding (26) and the at least one additional winding arranged on the respective one of the stator teeth (24) have rod-shaped longitudinal elements (see Fig. 9; straight portions at label 40) which run essentially radially with respect to an axis of rotation (unlabeled; at center of shaft 2) of an axial flux machine (1) equipped with a rotor (10).
Regarding claim 7, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 5, wherein
at least two of the rod-shaped longitudinal elements of at least one of the first winding (26) or the at least one additional winding are fixed to one another (i.e. made of the same flat wire 40. See Fig. 9 and para [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 5, wherein
at least two of the rod-shaped longitudinal elements are fixed to each other by the first winding (26) and the at least one additional winding arranged directly adjacent to one another (i.e. made of the same flat wire 40. See Fig. 9 and para [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, HATTORI discloses an axial flux machine, comprising at least one stator (20,30) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, HATTORI discloses a stator (20,30) of an axial flux machine (1), comprising:
a plurality of axially protruding stator teeth (24)(see para [0042] and Fig. 5A-5B);
a first winding (first layer) wound about at least one of the stator teeth (24); and
at least one additional winding (the second and/or third layer), separate from the first winding (by virtue of being circumferentially outside the first winding) that at least partially surrounds a radially outer face of said first winding and the at least one of the stator teeth (24) around which the first winding is wound; and a connecting section electrically connecting the first winding and the at least one additional winding. (see annotated Fig. 8A, Fig. 9 and para [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 12, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 11, wherein
the first winding (26) and the additional winding arranged on a respective one of the stator teeth (24) are electrically connected in series with one another by the connecting section (see Fig. 9 and para [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 12, wherein
the first winding (26) and the additional winding are arranged radially directly adjacent to one another on the respective one of the stator teeth (24) (see Fig. 9 and para [0050]).
Regarding claim 14, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 11, wherein
the first winding (26) and the additional winding arranged on the respective one of the stator teeth (24) have at least one of a same pitch or a same winding direction (they are wound in the same direction; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 11, wherein
the first winding (26) and the additional winding arranged on the respective one of the stator teeth (24) have rod-shaped longitudinal elements (see Fig. 9; straight portions at label 40) which run essentially radially with respect to an axis of rotation (unlabeled; at center of shaft 2) of a rotor (10) that is adapted to be located within the stator (20,30) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 15, wherein
at least two of the rod-shaped longitudinal elements of at least one of the first winding (26) or the additional winding are fixed to one another (i.e. made of the same flat wire 40. See Fig. 9 and para [0051]).
Regarding claim 18, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 15, wherein
at least two of the rod-shaped longitudinal elements are fixed to each other by the first winding (26) and the additional winding arranged directly adjacent to one another (i.e. made of the same flat wire 40. See Fig. 9 and para [0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI in view of HOLZHEU (US 20040046475).
Regarding claim 6, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 5, as discussed above.
HATTORI discloses a cross section of one said rod-shaped longitudinal element has a width and a thickness smaller than the width (see para [0051])
However, HATTORI does not specifically disclose a width B and a thickness D, wherein B/D> 1.5.
HOLZHEU discloses a stator of a brushless motor with a winding thickness (H) and width (B) wherein B/H=3 which is >1.5 (see para [0077].)
It 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 to provide the stator of HATTORI with a winding dimensioned similar to that of HOLZHEU with a width B and a thickness D, wherein B/D> 1.5.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to enable several windings to be placed in a slot together, as taught by HOLZHEU in para [0077].
Regarding claim 16, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 15, as discussed above.
HATTORI discloses a cross section of one said rod-shaped longitudinal element has a width and a thickness smaller than the width (see para [0051])
However, HATTORI does not specifically disclose a width B and a thickness D, wherein B/D> 1.5.
HOLZHEU discloses a stator of a brushless motor with a winding thickness (H) and width (B) wherein B/H=3 which is >1.5 (see para [0077])
It 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 to provide the stator of HATTORI with a winding dimensioned similar to that of HOLZHEU with a width B and a thickness D, wherein B/D> 1.5.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to enable several windings to be placed in a slot together, as taught by HOLZHEU in para [0077].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI in view of KATO (JP 2005304174; previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, HATTORI does not disclose the first winding is spaced apart from the stator tooth by means of at least one radial spacer element, such that a free space is located between a radial inner side of the first winding and the stator tooth that is adapted for a cooling fluid flow therebetween.
KATO discloses a stator of an axial flux machine (1) with stator winding (24) spaced apart from the stator tooth (22) by means of at least one radial spacer element (23, see Fig. 2), such that a free space (29) is located between a radial inner side of the first winding and the stator tooth that is adapted for a cooling fluid flow therebetween(see para [0015]).
PNG
media_image6.png
328
191
media_image6.png
Greyscale
KATO, Fig. 2
It 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 to provide the stator of HATTORI with a spacer similar to that of KATO wherein the first winding is spaced apart from the stator tooth by means of at least one radial spacer element, such that a free space is located between a radial inner side of the first winding and the stator tooth that is adapted for a cooling fluid flow therebetween.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to induce coolant into the coil of the stator and improve cooling capacity, as KATO teaches at para [0007]
Regarding claim 19, HATTORI discloses the stator of an axial flux machine according to claim 11, wherein
However, HATTORI does not disclose the first winding is spaced apart from the stator tooth by at least one radial spacer element, such that a free space is located between a radial inner side of the first winding and the stator tooth that is adapted for a cooling fluid flow (see para [0015]).
KATO discloses stator of an axial flux machine (1) with stator winding (24) spaced apart from the stator tooth (22) by means of at least one radial spacer element (23, see Fig. 2), such that a free space (29) is located between a radial inner side of the first winding and the stator tooth that is adapted for a cooling fluid flow therebetween.
It 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 to provide the stator of HATTORI with a spacer similar to that of KATO wherein the first winding is spaced apart from the stator tooth by means of at least one radial spacer element, such that a free space is located between a radial inner side of the first winding and the stator tooth that is adapted for a cooling fluid flow therebetween.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to induce coolant into the coil of the stator and improve cooling capacity, as KATO teaches at para [0007]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20060267439-A1 Rajasingham; US-20170353072-A1 MCSHEERY; and US-11424666-B1 Paritee all disclose multiple winding layers, separated horizontally, vertically, and circumferentially, wound around a single tooth.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
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, Oluseye 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.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights