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, pages 6 – 11, with respect to claims 1 and 3 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner (US 4323802 A), Claims 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner and further in view of Takahashi et al., Claims 8, 11, 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner and further in view of Imamura, and Claims 9 – 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner and further in view of Kaneko et al.
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:
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.
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 – 4, 6 – 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner.
Regarding Claim 1, Stoll et al. discloses a stator (30) of an electric machine having a stator axis (inherently shown in Stoll et al. Fig. 5) and having a laminated core (20) (Stoll et al. Fig. 5) on which stator teeth (inherently shown in Stoll et al. Fig. 1) and stator slots (2) (Stoll et al. Fig. 1) located between the stator teeth are formed and which has a large number of laminations (Stoll et al. Para [0028] lines 1 – 3),
wherein the stator teeth are interconnected via an annular stator yoke (inherently shown in Stoll et al. Fig. 1),
wherein a single conductor or a conductor bundle comprising a plurality of conductors (41 to 44) is provided in each of the stator slots in order to form an electrical stator winding (40) (Stoll et al. Fig. 6),
wherein a plurality of support points (clamping projections 11 to 17 provided on clamping stator lamination 8 and clamping projections 35, 36 provided on stator lamination 28) which are spaced apart from one another in an axial direction with respect to the stator axis are formed in each of the stator slots in order to clamp the conductor or conductor bundle in each stator slot (Stoll et al. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4),
wherein at least one slot gap (48) is formed between walls of each stator slot and the conductor or conductor bundle arranged in the stator slot (Stoll et al. Fig. 6),
which slot gap forms a slot gap channel which extends in the axial direction and through which a cooling medium can flow (Stoll et al. Para [0032] lines 1 – 3),
wherein a respective support point is formed by at least two laminations (Stoll et al. Fig. 5).
Stoll et al. does not disclose:
wherein the support points are each formed by twisting individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core,
wherein a respective support point is formed by at least two laminations,
wherein each of the stator slots between adjacent support points of the plurality of support points includes two slot gap channels,
one slot gap channel disposed on a first side of the single conductor or the conductor bundle and one slot gap channel disposed on a second side of the single conductor or the conductor bundle,
the second side being on an opposite side from the first side.
Leistner discloses:
wherein the support points (see below in annotated Leistner Fig. 4) are each formed by twisting individual or a plurality of laminations (partial stacks 17 – 20) of the laminated core (Leistner Fig. 4),
wherein a respective support point is formed by at least two laminations (below in annotated Leistner Fig. 4 one support point is formed by partial stacks 18 and 20, and the other respective point is formed by partial stacks 17 and 19),
wherein each of the stator slots (1) (Leistner Fig. 1) between adjacent support points of the plurality of support points includes two slot gap channels (lateral channels 12) (see below in annotated Leistner Fig. 4),
one slot gap channel disposed on a first side of the single conductor or the conductor bundle (2) and one slot gap channel disposed on a second side of the single conductor or the conductor bundle below in annotated Leistner Fig. 4,
the second side being on an opposite side from the first side (below in annotated Leistner Fig. 4).
Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose laminated stator cores therefore, Leistner constitutes prior art. Leistner discloses a plurality of stator laminations that are axially stacked and reversibly packed in the circumferential direction. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the support points are each formed by twisting individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core, wherein a respective support point is formed by at least two laminations, wherein each of the stator slots between adjacent support points of the plurality of support points includes two slot gap channels, one slot gap channel disposed on a first side of the single conductor or the conductor bundle and one slot gap channel disposed on a second side of the single conductor or the conductor bundle, and the second side being on an opposite side from the first side of Leistner for the purpose of effectively fastening the conductors in the slots and
PNG
media_image1.png
522
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
creating a plurality of in-slot cooling paths between the conductors and of the laminated stator core.
Regarding Claim 3, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 14.
Stoll et al. does not disclose:
wherein by twisting the laminations in opposite directions to form the respective support point,
support sections of the laminations are formed which project into the respective stator slot from opposite sides of the stator slot to clamp the conductor or conductor bundle between the support sections at clamping surfaces of the conductor or conductor bundle.
Leistner discloses:
wherein by twisting the laminations in opposite directions to form the respective support point (see above in annotated Leistner Fig. 4),
support sections of the laminations are formed which project into the respective stator slot from opposite sides of the stator slot to clamp the conductor or conductor bundle between the support sections at clamping surfaces of the conductor or conductor bundle (above in annotated Leistner Fig. 4 and Leistner c. 2, l. 26 – 32).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein by twisting the laminations in opposite directions to form the respective support point, support sections of the laminations are formed which project into the respective stator slot from opposite sides of the stator slot to clamp the conductor or conductor bundle between the support sections at clamping surfaces of the conductor or conductor bundle of Leistner for the purpose of having multiple points of circumferential support points to fix conductors in the stator slots.
Regarding Claim 4, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 3, wherein the conductor or the conductor bundle of the respective stator slot has at least one raised protective layer (32) at least on the clamping surfaces of the respective support point (Stoll et al. Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 1, wherein the respective slot gap channel is interrupted or narrowed at the support points in each case (Stoll et al. Fig. 6 and Para [0032] whole paragraph discloses the respective intermediate spaces accommodate a cooling medium passage),
additional passages being provided in the laminations (Stoll et al. Fig. 6 discloses intermediate spaces 48 that accommodate a cooling medium passage are provided in between surfaces of clamping lamination 8 and conductors 41 to 44) and/or in a protective layer and/or in the conductor or conductor bundle and/or between the conductors of the conductor bundle in order to cancel or reduce the respective interruption or narrowing (Stoll et al. Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 1, wherein the respective stator slot can be flowed through continuously in the axial direction (Stoll et al. Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 1.
Stoll et al. do not disclose:
wherein a respective support point is formed by two groups of laminations,
which are twisted in opposite directions by a certain angle of twist (φ) about the stator axis.
Leistner discloses:
wherein a respective support point is formed by two groups of laminations (above in annotated Leistner Fig. 4 one respective support point has one group of 2 partial stacks projected into slot 1 and the other group of 1 partial stack not projected into slot 1),
which are twisted in opposite directions by a certain angle of twist (φ) (180°) about the stator axis (above in annotated Leistner Fig. 4 and Leistner c. 2, l. 26 – 32).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a respective support point is formed by two groups of laminations, which are twisted in opposite directions by a certain angle of twist (φ) about the stator axis of Leistner for the purpose of having multiple points of circumferential support points to fix conductors in the stator slots.
Claims 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner and further in view of Takahashi et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 4.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein several protective layers of the same conductor or conductor bundle are interconnected via a web running in a direction of the conductor or conductor bundle.
Stoll et al. and Takahashi et al. structurally disclose:
wherein several protective layers (45) of the same conductor or conductor bundle (41 to 44) (of Stoll et al. Fig. 6) are interconnected via a web (see below in annotated Takahashi et al. Fig. 5A) running in a direction of the conductor or conductor bundle (of Takahashi et al. Fig. 5A).
PNG
media_image2.png
234
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stoll et al., Leistner, and Takahashi et al. disclose conductors therefore, Takahashi et al constitutes prior art. Takahashi et al. discloses a stator having flat slot coils inserted in an insulation member. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein several protective layers of the same conductor or conductor bundle are interconnected via a web running in a direction of the conductor or conductor bundle of structurally disclosed Stoll et al. and Takahashi et al. for the purpose of connecting the protective layers together to insulate the conductors of the stator.
Regarding Claim 12, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 1.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein the conductor bundle includes a stack of flat-wire conductors.
Takahashi et al. discloses:
wherein the conductor bundle (25) includes a stack of flat-wire conductors (26, 27) (Takahashi et al. Fig. 5A).
Stoll et al., Leistner, and Takahashi et al. disclose conductors therefore, Takahashi et al constitutes prior art. Takahashi et al. discloses a stator having flat slot coils inserted in an insulation member. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the conductor bundle includes a stack of flat-wire conductors of Takahashi et al. for the purpose of having higher current capacity of the stator.
Regarding Claim 15, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 4.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein the protective layer is formed in the shape of a cuff, is sleeve-shaped, tubular, clamp-shaped, U-shaped, strip-shaped, or flat strip-shaped.
Takahashi et al. discloses:
wherein the protective layer is formed in the shape of a cuff, is sleeve-shaped, tubular, clamp shaped, U-shaped, strip-shaped, or flat strip- shaped (Takahashi et al. Fig. 5A discloses an insulation member 28 that is tubular).
Stoll et al., Leistner, and Takahashi et al. disclose conductors therefore, Takahashi et al constitutes prior art. Takahashi et al. discloses a stator having flat slot coils inserted in an insulation member. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the protective layer is formed in the shape of a cuff, is sleeve shaped, tubular, clamp-shaped, U-shaped, strip-shaped, or flat strip- shaped for the purpose of having effective insulative coverage to increase service life of the conductors.
Claims 8, 11, 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner and further in view of Imamura.
Regarding Claim 8, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 1.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein the twisted laminations are fixed in the laminated core against further twisting.
Imamura discloses:
wherein the twisted laminations are fixed in the laminated core against further twisting (Imamura Para [0037] lines 1 – 6 discloses multiple split stator cores that are shifted from one another circumferentially are fixed via welds).
Stoll et al., Leistner, and Imamura disclose laminated stator cores therefore, Imamura constitutes prior art. Imamura discloses a stator core with a plurality of stator laminations that are shifted in one circumferential direction compared to another plurality of stator laminations located axially shifted in the opposite circumferential direction. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the twisted laminations are fixed in the laminated core against further twisting of Imamura for the purpose of ensuring functionality of the twisted laminations in the laminated.
Regarding Claim 11, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose a method of manufacturing a stator according to claim 1, comprising the steps of:
a) Stacking of laminations to form the laminated core (Stoll et al. Para [0009] lines 1 – 2),
b) Axial insertion of the conductors or conductor bundles into the respective stator slots (Stoll et al. Para [0009] lines 3 – 4).
Stoll et al. does not disclose:
c) Twisting of individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core to form several support points per stator slot,
d) Fixing the twisted laminations in the laminated core to prevent further twisting,
e) Setting conductor ends of the conductors and connecting the conductors to the stator winding.
Leistner disclose:
c) Twisting of individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core to form several support points per stator slot (above in annotated Leistner Fig. 4).
Imamura discloses:
d) Fixing the twisted laminations in the laminated core to prevent further twisting (Imamura Para [0037] lines 1 – 6),
e) Setting conductor ends of the conductors and connecting the conductors to the stator winding (Imamura Para [0037] line 7).
Stoll et al., Leistner, and Imamura disclose laminated stator cores therefore, Imamura constitutes prior art. Imamura discloses a stator core with a plurality of stator laminations that are shifted in one circumferential direction compared to another plurality of stator laminations located axially shifted in the opposite circumferential direction. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein twisting of individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core to form several support points per stator slot of Leistner and fixing the twisted laminations in the laminated core to prevent further twisting, and setting conductor ends of the conductors and connecting the conductors to the stator winding of Imamura for the purpose of 1) having multiple points of circumferential support points to fix conductors in the stator slots and 2) reducing manufacturing costs for the production of the laminated stator core.
Regarding Claim 16, Stoll et al., Leistner, and Imamura disclose the stator according to claim 8.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein the twisted laminations are fixed in the laminated core against further twisting by welding.
Imamura discloses:
wherein the twisted laminations are fixed in the laminated core against further twisting by welding (Imamura Para [0037] lines 1 – 6).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the twisted laminations are fixed in the laminated core against further twisting by welding of Imamura for the purpose of ensuring functionality of the twisted laminations in the laminated.
Regarding Claim 18, Stoll et al., Leistner, and Imamura disclose the method according to claim 11, further comprising providing the conductors or conductor bundles with protective layers (45) (Stoll et al. Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 19, Stoll et al., Leistner, and Imamura disclose the method according to claim 11.
Stoll et al. does not disclose:
wherein twisting of individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core includes twisting one group or several groups of adjacent laminations.
Leistner discloses:
wherein twisting of individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core includes twisting one group or several groups of adjacent laminations (above in annotated Leistner Fig. 4 one respective support point has one group of 2 partial stacks projected into slot 1 and the other group of 1 partial stack not projected into slot 1).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein twisting of individual or a plurality of laminations of the laminated core includes twisting one group or several groups of adjacent laminations of Leistner for the purpose of having multiple points of circumferential support points to fix conductors in the stator slots.
Regarding Claim 20, Stoll et al., Leistner, and Imamura the method according to claim 11.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein fixing the twisted laminations in the laminated core to prevent further twisting, includes joining the laminations to form a torsionally rigid laminated core.
Imamura discloses:
wherein fixing the twisted laminations in the laminated core to prevent further twisting, includes joining the laminations to form a torsionally rigid laminated core (Imamura Para [0037] lines 1 – 6 discloses multiple split stator cores that are shifted from one another circumferentially are fixed via welds).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein fixing the twisted laminations in the laminated core to prevent further twisting, includes joining the laminations to form a torsionally rigid laminated core of Imamura for the purpose of ensuring functionality of the twisted laminations in the laminated.
Claims 9 – 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. in view of Leistner and further in view of Kaneko et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose a stator according to claim 1.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
an electric machine having a housing in which a stator according to claim 1 is arranged,
wherein the stator winding forms a winding head on each end face of the stator,
a winding head cooling chamber,
which accommodates the respective winding head is provided inside the housing on each end face of the stator for cooling the respective winding head, it being possible for the flow to pass through the stator slots, starting from one of the two winding head cooling chambers, into the other winding head cooling chamber.
Stoll et al. and Kaneko et al. structurally discloses:
an electric machine (Kaneko et al. Para [0044] lines 2 – 3) having a housing (1) (of Kaneko et al. Fig. 1) in which a stator according to claim 1 is arranged (of Stoll et al. Fig. 1).
Kaneko et al. discloses:
wherein the stator winding (14) forms a winding head on each end face of the stator (5) (Kaneko et al. Fig. 10),
a winding head cooling chamber (annular spaces of cooling jackets 6A and 6B) (Kaneko et al. Fig. 10),
which accommodates the respective winding head is provided inside the housing on each end face of the stator for cooling the respective winding head (Kaneko et al. Fig. 10),
it being possible for the flow to pass through the stator slots (10), starting from one of the two winding head cooling chambers, into the other winding head cooling chamber (Kaneko et al. Para [0050] lines 12 – 19 discloses a cooling medium being flowed to inlet 7A -> cooling jacket 6A -> cooling passage 18 formed in slot 10 -> cooling jacket 6B -> to discharge 7B).
Stoll et al., Leistner, and Kaneko et al. disclose stator windings therefore, Kaneko et al. constitutes prior art. Kaneko et al. discloses an electric machine with a housing that has two cooling jackets with annular spaces to flow cooling around to coil ends of the stator windings. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electric machine having a housing in which a stator according to claim 1 is arranged of structurally disclosed Stoll et al. and Kaneko et al., and wherein the stator winding forms a winding head on each end face of the stator, a winding head cooling chamber, which accommodates the respective winding head is provided inside the housing on each end face of the stator for cooling the respective winding head, it being possible for the flow to pass through the stator slots, starting from one of the two winding head cooling chambers, into the other winding head cooling chamber of Kaneko et al. for the purpose of 1) ensuring lower manufacturing cost of the stator for the electric machine and 2) ensuring cooling is being provided on the winding heads of the stator winding to dissipate heat.
Regarding Claim 10, Stoll et al., Leistner, and Kaneko et al. disclose the electric machine according to claim 9.
wherein a respective winding head cooling chamber is bounded radially inwards with respect to the stator axis by an annular wall.
Kaneko et al. discloses:
wherein a respective winding head cooling chamber is bounded radially inwards with respect to the stator axis by an annular wall (19) (Kaneko et al. Fig. 10).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a respective winding head cooling chamber is bounded radially inwards with respect to the stator axis by an annular wall of Kaneko et al. for the purpose of ensuring cooling does not leak to other components of the electric machine.
Regarding Claim 13, Stoll et al. and Leistner disclose the stator according to claim 1.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein the cooling medium is oil.
Kaneko et al. discloses:
wherein the cooling medium is oil (Kaneko et al. Para [0050] line 12).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the cooling medium is oil of Kaneko et al. for the purpose of reducing friction and dissipate heat away from the electric machine.
Regarding Claim 17, Stoll et al., Leistner, and Kaneko et al. discloses the electric machine according to claim 10.
Stoll et al. and Leistner do not disclose:
wherein the annular wall is a sealing sleeve.
Kaneko et al. discloses:
wherein the annular wall is a sealing sleeve (Kaneko et al. Para [0057] lines 3 – 6 discloses a cylindrical section 19 and rubber seal 20 that act together as a sealing sleeve).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the annular wall is a sealing sleeve of Kaneko et al. for the purpose of ensuring cooling does not leak to other components of the electric machine.
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 THEODORE L PERKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 17:00pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached on (571) 272-3560. 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.
/THEODORE L PERKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834