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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, and 17 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishima (US 20070182271), and in view of Langanki (DE 102019119536).
As to claim 1, Sugishima discloses a segmented annular stator (Fig. 1A) for an electric machine
(Para 0002), comprising: a concentrated winding (42; Fig.8) having a plurality of circular ring segment-
shaped stator segments (Fig. 8) which are substantially identical and each of which has a stator tooth
(6b; Fig. 8) with a first recess (Fig. 8) protruding into the stator tooth in a circumferential direction and a
second recess (Fig. 8) protruding into the stator tooth in the circumferential direction, wherein a
multilayer coil (Fig. 8) made of a wound winding wire (Para 0012) is arranged in the first recess and the
second recess (Fig. 8), and the first recess and the second recess each has a recess depth (Fig. 8) which
increases with a radius of the annular stator (Fig. 8), wherein an outermost winding layer (Fig. 8) of the
multilayer coil in the first recess and an outermost winding layer (Fig. 8) of the multilayer coil in the
second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the circumferential direction engage into each other in the
circumferential direction in an electrically insulated manner so as to intersect in the radial direction (Fig.
8).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
423
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sugishima fails to disclose wherein the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes; and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints.
Langanki, however, discloses wherein the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes (Fig. 5); and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
277
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugshima with the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes; and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints, as disclosed by Langanki, to optimize magnetic field distribution.
As to claim 11, Sugishima discloses an electric machine (Para 0002) comprising: a segmented
annular stator (Fig. 1A) with a concentrated winding (Fig. 8) having a plurality of circular ring segment-
shaped stator segments (Fig. 8) which are substantially identical and each of which has a stator tooth
with a first recess protruding into the stator tooth in a circumferential direction and a second recess
protruding into the stator tooth in the circumferential direction (Fig. 8), wherein a multilayer coil made
of a wound winding wire is arranged in the first recess and the second recess (Fig. 8), and the first recess
and the second recess each has a recess depth which increases with a radius of the annular stator (Fig.
8), wherein an outermost winding layer of the multilayer coil in the first recess and an outermost
winding layer of the multilayer coil in the second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the
circumferential direction engage into each other in the circumferential direction (Fig. 8) in an electrically
insulated manner so as to intersect in the radial direction; and a rotor rotatable mounted within the
stator (Para 0054).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
423
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sugishima fails to disclose wherein the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes; and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints.
Langanki, however, discloses wherein the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes (Fig. 5); and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
277
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugshima with the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes; and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints, as disclosed by Langanki, to optimize magnetic field distribution.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishima, Langanki, and in view of Koyama (WO 2016035137, Submitted by applicant).
As to claim 2, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the stator according to claim 1, wherein, in the multilayer coil, at least two successive turns of at least one of the outermost winding layers (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
252
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sugishima fails to disclose a radial distance between one another which corresponds
approximately to a diameter of the winding wire.
Koyama, however, discloses a radial distance (Fig. 4) between one another which corresponds
approximately to a diameter (Fig. 4) of the winding wire.
PNG
media_image6.png
507
327
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with a radial distance
between one another which corresponds approximately to a diameter of the winding wire, as disclosed
by Koyama, to efficiently cool the coils (Suggested by Koyama).
As to claim 12, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the electric machine according to claim 11, and at least two successive turns of at least one of the outermost winding layers.
Sugishima fails to disclose a radial distance between one another which corresponds
approximately to a diameter of the winding wire.
Koyama, however, discloses a radial distance (Fig. 4) between one another which corresponds
approximately to a diameter (Fig. 4) of the winding wire.
PNG
media_image7.png
500
319
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with a radial distance between one another which corresponds approximately to a diameter of the winding wire, as disclosed by Koyama, to efficiently cool the coils (Suggested by Koyama).
Claims 3-4, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishima, Langanki, and further in view of Tsuiki (US 2015/0028715, submitted by applicant).
As to claim 3, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the stator according to claim 1.
Sugishima fails to disclose the turns of at least one of the outermost winding layers have a track
change after each groove passage by a diameter of the winding wire in the radial direction, so that these turns thus have two track changes, one at a beginning or end of the turn and one in the middle of the
turn.
Tsuiki, however, discloses the turns of at least one of the outer winding layers have a track
change after each groove passage by a diameter of the winding wire in the radial direction, so that these
turns thus have two track changes (Fig. 15), one at the beginning or end of the turn and one in the
middle of the turn.
PNG
media_image8.png
261
341
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with the turns of at least
one of the outer winding layers have a track change after each groove passage by a diameter of the
winding wire in the radial direction, so that these turns thus have two track changes, one at the
beginning or end of the turn and one in the middle of the turn, as disclosed by Tsuiki, to maintain a small
pitch feed in every turn (Para 0009).
As to claim 4, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the stator according claim 1.
Sugishima fails to disclose wherein at least two turns of the winding wire in the outermost winding layers have a spiral shape.
Tsuiki, however, discloses wherein at least two turns of the winding wire in the outermost winding layers have a spiral shape (Fig. 9 of Tsuiki).
PNG
media_image9.png
256
358
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with wherein at least two turns of the winding wire in the outermost winding layers have a spiral shape, as disclosed by Tsuiki, to effectively utilize space in a structural manner.
As to claim 7, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the stator according claim 1.
Sugishima fails to disclose an insulation is arranged between the outermost layer of the coil in the first recess and the outermost layer of the coil in the second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the circumferential direction.
Tsuiki, however, discloses wherein an insulation (9; Fig. 5) is arranged between the outermost layer of the coil in the first recess and the outermost layer of the coil in the second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the circumferential direction.
PNG
media_image10.png
270
340
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with an insulation is arranged between the outermost layer of the coil in the first recess and the outermost layer of the coil in the second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the circumferential direction, as disclosed by Tsuiki, to effectively insulate the coils.
As to claim 14, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the electric machine according to claim 11,
Sugishima fails to disclose wherein at least two turns of the winding wire in the outermost winding layers have a spiral shape.
Tsuiki, however, discloses wherein at least two turns of the winding wire in the outermost winding layers have a spiral shape (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image11.png
252
356
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with at least two turns of the winding wire in the outermost winding layers have a spiral shape, as disclosed by Tsuiki, to effectively utilize space in a structural manner.
As to claim 17, the combination of Sugishima and Langanki discloses the stator according claim 11.
Sugishima fails to disclose wherein an insulation is arranged between the outermost layer of the coil in the first recess and the outermost layer of the coil in the second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the circumferential direction.
Tsuiki, however, discloses wherein an insulation (9; Fig. 5) is arranged between the outermost layer of the coil in the first recess and the outermost layer of the coil in the second recess of an adjacent stator tooth in the circumferential direction.
PNG
media_image12.png
275
333
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishima, in view of Langanki, Tsuiki, and Koyama.
As to claim 8, Sugishima discloses a method for producing a segmented annular stator (Para
0011) for an electric machine, having a concentrated winding (Para 0011), comprising a plurality of
circular ring segment-shaped stator segments (Para 0081), which are substantially identical and each of
which has a stator tooth with a first recess protruding into the stator tooth in a circumferential direction
and a second recess protruding into the stator tooth in a circumferential direction (Fig. 8), wherein the
first recess and the second recess each have a recess depth which increases with a radius of the annular
stator (Fig. 8), the following steps: othocyclic winding of a multilayer coil by a winding wire inserted in
the first recess and the second recess (Fig. 8), and at least two successive windings (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image13.png
430
561
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Sugishima fails to disclose winding a number of turns of the winding wire in an outermost
winding layer of the coil in the first recess and the winding wire of an outermost winding layer of the coil
in the second recess so that they have a spiral shape, wherein at least one of the outermost winding
layers of each coil have a radial distance from one another which corresponds approximately to a
diameter of the winding wire; wherein the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes; and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints.
Tsuiki, however, discloses winding a number of turns of the winding wire in an outermost
winding layer of the coil in the first recess and the winding wire of an outermost winding layer of the coil
in the second recess so that they have a spiral shape (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image14.png
279
334
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with winding a number of
turns of the winding wire in an outermost winding layer of the coil in the first recess and the winding
wire of an outermost winding layer of the coil in the second recess so that they have a spiral shape, as
disclosed by Tsuiki, to minimize energy loss.
Koyama, however, discloses at least one of the outermost winding layers of each coil have a
radial distance from one another which corresponds approximately to a diameter of the winding wire
(Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image15.png
460
290
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with at least one of the
outermost winding layers of each coil have a radial distance from one another which corresponds
approximately to a diameter of the winding wire, as disclosed by Koyama, to efficiently cool the coils
(Suggested by Koyama).
Langanki, however, discloses wherein the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes (Fig. 5); and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
277
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugshima with the stator teeth are asymmetric such that circumferential yoke widths on both sides of a tooth center are of different sizes; and wherein in each case, at a first of two circumferential joints of the asymmetric stator teeth, a radial yoke thickness of the circumferential yoke width is smaller than at the other circumferential joint defining a step at a radially-inner side of the circumferential joints, as disclosed by Langanki, to optimize magnetic field distribution.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishima, Tsuiki, Langanki, Koyama, and further in view of Hill (DE 102014213595).
As to claim 9, the combination of Sugishima, Tsuiki, Langanki, and Koyama discloses the method according to claim 8.
Sugishima fails to disclose in at least one of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the first
recess or outermost winding layer of the coil in the second recess, the winding wire of the outermost
winding layer of the coil is calibrated in a pressing tool after winding and before assembly of the stator.
Hill, however, discloses the winding wire of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the first
recess and the winding wire of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the second recess is calibrated
in a pressing tool (85; Fig. 16) after winding and before assembly of the stator.
PNG
media_image16.png
253
312
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with the winding wire of
the outermost winding layer of the coil in the first recess and the winding wire of the outermost winding
layer of the coil in the second recess is calibrated in a pressing tool after winding and before assembly of
the stator, as disclosed by Hill, to exert pressure in all three spatial directions (Para 0091).
As to claim 10, the combination of Sugishima, Tsuiki, Langanki, Koyama and Hill discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein three pressing jaws are used in the pressing tool per coil side, wherein firstly, on both coil sides, groove base pressing jaws (86; Fig. 16 of Hill) act as counterholders to position the radially outer windings of the coil and hold them (stably) in the further calibrating process, then, on both coil sides, groove slot pressing jaws with a radially acting force component radially push together the winding wire of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the first recess and the winding wire of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the second recess (Fig. 14 and 16 of Hill), and finally, on both coil sides, coil contour pressing jaws (85; Fig. 16 of Hill) press the winding wire of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the first recess and the winding wire of the outermost winding layer of the coil in the second recess into a predefined target contour with a predominantly circumferentially acting force.
PNG
media_image17.png
475
356
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishima, Langanki, Koyama, and further in view of Tsuiki.
As to claim 13, the combination of Sugishima, Langanki, and Koyama discloses the electric machine according to claim 12.
Sugishima fails to disclose the turns of at least one of the outermost winding layers have a track
change after each groove passage by a diameter of the winding wire in the radial direction, so that these
turns thus have two track changes, one at a beginning or end of the turn and one in a middle of the turn.
Tsuiki, however, discloses the turns of at least one of the outer winding layers have a track
change after each groove passage by a diameter of the winding wire in the radial direction, so that these
turns thus have two track changes (Fig. 15), one at the beginning or end of the turn and one in the
middle of the turn.
PNG
media_image18.png
262
343
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stator of Sugishima with the turns of at least
one of the outer winding layers have a track change after each groove passage by a diameter of the
winding wire in the radial direction, so that these turns thus have two track changes, one at the
beginning or end of the turn and one in the middle of the turn, as disclosed by Tsuiki, to maintain a small
pitch feed in every turn (Para 0009).
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 ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm.
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 M 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834