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 Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19 were rejected as being obvious over Renault in view of Bulatow. Claims 4 and 13 were rejected as being obvious over Renault in view of Bulatow and Bosch. Claims 9 and 18 were rejected as being obvious over Renault in view of Bulatow and Germann. Claim 20 was rejected as being obvious over Renault in view of Bulatow and Lee. The Applicant amended claims 1, 9, 11, and 18 and canceled claims 5, 8, 14, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argued that Renault in view of Bulatow does not teach the claim limitation of “wherein the stator body has a stator tooth and a stator yoke, and the local depression is provided in the stator tooth; wherein the insulating coating is provided on a side face of the stator tooth adjoining the stator yoke; and wherein the local depression extends to the side face.” The Applicant points to Renault not extending to a side face of the stator tooth of the stator body, but instead being defined by an additional component that is not part of a stator body. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The depression of Renault extends toward a side of the stator tooth and Bulatow depicts a wholly formed stator tooth. Therefore, the claims remain rejected over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent No. 2 998 112 to Renault SA (hereinafter Renault; provided by Applicant on 10/9/2023) in view of WIPO Publication No. 2007/107134 to Bulatow et al. (hereinafter Bulatow).
Regarding claim 1, Renault teaches an electric machine (Paragraph [0001]) comprising: a stator (FIG. 1, 100), a rotor (Paragraph [0006]) and an air gap (Paragraph [0007]) located between the stator and the rotor, wherein
the stator has:
a stator body (FIG. 1, 101);
a stator winding (FIG. 6, 151);
an insulating coating (FIG. 6, 160; Paragraph [0010]) arranged between the stator winding and the stator body for providing electric insulation between the stator winding and the stator body (Paragraph [0009]); and
a local depression (FIG. 6, 173) provided in the stator body,
wherein the insulating coating is arranged in the local depression (Paragraph [0024]), and
the local depression is arranged on a side of the stator body facing the air gap (FIG. 6, 170 faces air gap);
wherein the stator body has a stator tooth (FIG. 1, 103) and a stator yoke (FIG. 1, 101), and the local depression is provided in the stator tooth (FIG. 5, 173);
wherein the insulating coating is provided on a side face of the stator tooth adjoining the stator yoke (FIG. 6; 108, 164).
Renault does not teach the insulating coating being applied to the stator body, wherein the local depression extends to the side face.
However, Bulatow teaches a stator body (FIG. 1, 2) having a coating (FIG. 1, 5) applied to it (Translation Page 5), wherein the local depression of Renault would extend to the side face due to the structure of the stator tooth (FIG. 1, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Renault with the insulation coating of Bulatow to ensure a more effective connection between the insulation and the stator body.
Regarding claim 2, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being arranged exclusively in the local depression (FIG. 6, 181) on a side of the stator body facing the air gap.
Regarding claim 3, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Renault further teaches the electric machine being an electric axial flux machine and the stator and the rotor with the air gap located in between are arranged coaxially to one another in a direction axial to a main axis of the electric axial flux machine (Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 5, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being provided on the stator yoke on a side of the stator yoke facing the air gap (FIG. 6, 163).
Regarding claim 7, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being arranged directly on the stator (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being an overmold coating (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Renault teaches a stator (FIG. 1, 100) for an electric machine (Paragraph [0001]) comprising:
a stator body (FIG. 1, 101);
a stator winding (FIG. 6, 151);
an insulating coating (FIG. 6, 160; Paragraph [0010]) arranged between the stator winding and the stator body for providing electric insulation between the stator winding and the stator body (Paragraph [0009]); and
a local depression (FIG. 6, 173) provided in the stator body,
wherein the insulating coating is arranged in the local depression (Paragraph [0024]);
wherein the stator body has a stator tooth (FIG. 1, 103) and a stator yoke (FIG. 1, 101), and the local depression is provided in the stator tooth (FIG. 5, 173);
wherein the insulating coating is provided on a side face of the stator tooth adjoining the stator yoke (FIG. 6; 108, 164).
Renault does not teach the insulating coating being applied to the stator body; wherein the local depression extends to the side face.
However, Bulatow teaches a stator body (FIG. 1, 2) having a coating (FIG. 1, 5) applied to it (Translation Page 5); wherein the local depression of Renault would extend to the side face due to the structure of the stator tooth (FIG. 1, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Renault with the insulation coating of Bulatow to ensure a more effective connection between the insulation and the stator body.
Regarding claim 12, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the stator according to claim 11, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being arranged exclusively in the local depression (FIG. 6, 181).
Regarding claim 15, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the stator according to claim 14, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being provided on the stator yoke on a side of the stator yoke (FIG. 6, 163).
Regarding claim 16, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the stator according to claim 15, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being arranged directly on the stator (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 19, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the stator according to claim 11, wherein Renault further teaches the insulating coating being an overmold coating (Paragraph [0010]).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renault in view of Bulatow and in further view of German Patent No. 10 2015 212 011 to Bosch GmbH Robert (hereinafter Bosch; provided by Applicant on 10/9/2023).
Regarding claim 4, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 3.
Renault in view of Bulatow does not teach the local depression being formed such that, in the direction axial to the main axis, a common height of the stator body and the insulating coating arranged in the local depression is less than or equal to a height of the stator body outside a region of the local depression.
However, Bosch teaches an insulation (FIG. 6, 220) and a stator body local depression (FIG. 6, 244) having a common height equal to a height of the stator body outside a region of the local depression (FIG. 3, 234).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Renault in view of Bulatow with the flush insulation of Bosch to provide a reliable fit of the insulation to the stator (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the stator according to claim 11.
Renault in view of Bulatow does not teach the local depression being formed such that, in the direction axial to the main axis, a common height of the stator body and the insulating coating arranged in the local depression is less than or equal to a height of the stator body outside a region of the local depression.
However, Bosch teaches an insulation (FIG. 6, 220) and a stator body local depression (FIG. 6, 244) having a common height equal to a height of the stator body outside a region of the local depression (FIG. 3, 234).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Renault in view of Bulatow with the flush insulation of Bosch to provide a reliable fit of the insulation to the stator (Paragraph [0045]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renault in view of Bulatow and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 4,251,745 to Germann.
Regarding claim 9, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 1.
Renault in view of Bulatow does not teach that between the insulating coating provided on the side face of the stator tooth adjoining the stator yoke and the stator winding a spacer element is provided for forming a cooling channel between the insulating coating and the stator winding.
However, Germann teaches a spacer (FIG. 1, 12) arranged between the insulation of a slot (FIG. 1, 10) and a winding (FIG. 1, 11) to form a cooling channel (FIG. 1, 12’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Renault in view of Bulatow with the spacer of Germann to provide further cooling to the stator windings and improve thermal performance.
Regarding claim 18, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the stator according to claim 1.
Renault in view of Bulatow does not teach that between the insulating coating provided on the side face of the stator tooth adjoining the stator yoke and the stator winding a spacer element is provided for forming a cooling channel between the insulating coating and the stator winding.
However, Germann teaches a spacer (FIG. 1, 12) arranged between the insulation of a slot (FIG. 1, 10) and a winding (FIG. 1, 11) to form a cooling channel (FIG. 1, 12’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Renault in view of Bulatow with the spacer of Germann to provide further cooling to the stator windings and improve thermal performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renault in view of Bulatow and in further view of Korean Patent No. 10-2016-0086698 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 20, Renault in view of Bulatow teaches the electric machine according to claim 1.
Renault in view of Bulatow does not teach the insulating coating being at least one of a lacquer or a fluidized bed sinter.
However, Lee teaches an insulating coating (FIG. 4(b), 150) being at least one of a lacquer or a fluidized bed sinter (Paragraph [0029]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Renault in view of Bulatow with the insulating coating production method of Lee as it may be more economical to produce the insulating coating via lacquer or fluidized bed sinter compared to overmolding.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights