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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of apparatus group I and claims 1-11 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 01-22-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II Method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse arguing that “ all embodiments” of the current application are overlapping in the same classes/subclasses and are not a burden on the examiner. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the election is between a method and an apparatus classified in different classes as indicated in the election requirement, and that no such embodiments exist as argued by applicant. The Restriction is FINAL.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 stated in line 6-7 “”are vary” which is confusing what is means. Correction is needed.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on dependency from rejected claims 1 respectively.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1,3-5,9,10,16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samanta (EP 3534499A1 hereinafter “Samanta”) in view of Toru (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2009291050 hereinafter “Toru”).
Re-claim 1, Samanta discloses an electrical machine (100) comprising: a rotor (120); and a stator (110); wherein at least one of the rotor (120) and the stator (110) comprises a plurality of teeth (212a) and a plurality of coils (214) the plurality of coils comprising one or more strands wound (318a-f) around the teeth in a plurality of layers (layers 318a-318f) comprising he plurality of coils comprising: one or more strands wound around the teeth in a plurality of layers (318) comprising at least a top layer (318d), a bottom layer (318e), and an intermediate layer (318a,318f) disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer (see fig. below), each of the plurality of layers comprising; the coils comprising a first axial end portion (annotated fig.3), a central portion (annotated fig.3, and fig.4) and a second axial end portion (other axial end of coils, in fig.3 and fig.4) opposite to the first axial end portion (annotated fig.3 and fig.4); wherein the first axial end portion of a top layer (portion of 318c) of at least one of the coils (318) is axially displaced (see fig.3, axially displaced coils) with respect to the first axial end portion of the intermediate second layer (318e, 318b, or 318a are in different axial distances from each other, and intermediate layer is in between the layers) of the at least one coil (annotated fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
358
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
430
940
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Samanta fails to explicitly teach that respective axial positions of the first axial end of the plurality of layers of the at least one coil are vary in alternating manner from the top layer to the bottom layer.
However, Toru teaches that respective axial positions of the first axial end of the plurality of layers of the at least one coil vary in alternating manner from the top layer to the bottom layer (see annotated fig. and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the layers of Samanta wherein that respective axial positions of the first axial end of the plurality of layers of the at least one coil vary in alternating manner from the top layer to the bottom layer as shown by Toru to allow downsizing of coil end in radial direction with no compression of conductor saving space and size (Abstract,Toru).
PNG
media_image5.png
333
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
507
395
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 3, Samanta discloses electrical machine of claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer and the at least one of the top and the second layer (318a-318f are adjacent, any 2 layers are adjacent layers ) are adjacent layers (see fig.3).
Re-claim 4, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 3, wherein the first axial end portion of the at least one of the top layer and bottom layer(axial ends in fig.4) extends less in the axial direction than the first axial end portion of the intermediate layer (less than 318d).
Re-claim 5, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 3, further comprising an axial gap (gap between lc and la, annotated fig.4) between the first axial end portion of the first layer (318f) of the coil and the first axial end portion of the second layer (318d, or 318c) of the coil.
Re-claim 9, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 1, wherein an axial position (LC, La) of axial end portions of the layers (layers 318-a-318f) in the first axial end portion of the coil (annotated fig.3) varies in an alternating manner from a top layer (top layer at LC top in fig.3) to a bottom layer (bottom layer is la, end sections 318f, 318a are same level, then alternate with next ones being 318b, and 318e being higher level and so on to 318c, and 318d).
Re-claim 10, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 1, wherein an axial position of axial end portions (positions of LC in fig.3) of the layers in the first axial end portion of the coil increases from a top layer (see fig.3, increases from top layer at La height, see layer of 318f) to a central region (central region at 318c) and then decreases from the central region (at height of 318d) to a bottom layer (bottom layer at 318a).
Re-claim 16, Samanta discloses a generator for a wind turbine (title) comprising: a rotor (120); a stator (110); and a radial air gap (airgap) separating the rotor (120) and the stator (110); the stator (110) comprising a plurality of teeth (212a) and a plurality of coils (214) wound around the teeth in layers (layers 318a-318f); wherein a coil comprises a first layer (318a-318f) having an axial end portion axially (318a-318c) displaced with respect to an axial end portion of a second layer (318d-318f) adjacent the first layer (318a-318c), the axial end portions of the first layer and the second layer being at a same axial region of the coil.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samanta (EP 3534499A1 hereinafter “Samanta”) modified in view of Ramtahal (US PG Pub 202202176 hereinafter “Ramtahal”).
Re-claim 2, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 1.
Samanta fails to explicitly teach wherein the first axial end portion of the coil is further away from an inlet of the electrical machine configured to receive a cooling fluid for cooling the coils than the second axial end portion of the coil.
However, Ramtahal teaches wherein the first axial end portion of the coil (annotated fig.3) is further away from an inlet (111) of the electrical machine configured to receive a cooling fluid (111 has air in, 114) for cooling the coils than the second axial end portion (annotated fig.3) of the coil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the device of Samanta the first axial end portion of the coil is further away from an inlet of the electrical machine configured to receive a cooling fluid for cooling the coils than the second axial end portion of the coil as shown by Ramtahal to avoid hot spots and cool device to efficient making temperature more homogenous through all coil (Ramtahal, P[0016-0019]).
PNG
media_image7.png
569
528
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 6-8, and 11,17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samanta (EP 3534499A1 hereinafter “Samanta”) in view of Onihashi (Japanese Patent Publication JP2015035901a hereinafter “Onihashi”).
Re-claim 6, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 5.
However Samanta fails to explicitly teach further comprising a support insert arranged in the axial gap and bridging the axial gap at least partially.
However, Onihashi teaches teach further comprising a support insert (60) arranged in the axial gap (annotated fig.3) and bridging the axial gap at least partially (annotated fig.3 showing gap bridged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the device of Samanta comprising a support insert arranged in the axial gap and bridging the axial gap at least partially configured to receive a cooling fluid for cooling the coils than the second axial end portion of the coil as shown by Onihashi to plurality of cooling ventilation passages with a simple configuration and that can improve mechanical strength and productivity (Onihashi, P[0001]).
PNG
media_image8.png
464
544
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
578
508
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 7, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 6.
However Samanta fails to explicitly teach the support insert is directly or indirectly connected to an axial protrusion of a corresponding tooth of the coil.
However, Onihashi teaches teach further comprising the support insert is directly or indirectly connected to an axial protrusion (51) of a corresponding tooth of the coil (annotated fig.3 showing gap bridged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the device of Samanta the support insert is directly or indirectly connected to an axial protrusion of a corresponding tooth of the coil as shown by Onihashi to have a simple configuration and that can improve mechanical strength and productivity (Onihashi, P[0001]).
Re-claim 8, Samanta discloses the electrical machine of claim 7.
However Samanta fails to explicitly teach wherein the first axial end portion of the coil comprising the support insert is tied to the axial protrusion.
However, Onihashi teaches teach wherein the first axial end portion of the coil comprising the support insert (60) is tied to the axial protrusion (51,annotated fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the device of the first axial end portion of the coil comprising the support insert is tied to the axial protrusion as shown by Onihashi to have a simple configuration and that can improve mechanical strength and productivity (Onihashi, P[0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
Claims 11 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is allowed.
The prior art of record fail to teach the combination of claim 11 with claim 1.
Similarly the prior art of record fail to teach claim 16 combination.
Claims 17-20 are allowed based on dependency from claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
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 MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834