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, see pages 2-8, filed 05/02/2017, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Saint-Michel et al. (US PG Pub 20210203197).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7,9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (JP6305203) in view of Saint-Michel et al. (US PG Pub 20210203197).
As to independent claim 1, Kawamura teaches a split-type motor stator (2) having a coil assembly (11), which includes a plurality of coil strands (see figure 1) , provided therein, the split-type motor stator (2) comprising: a first core (2a) located on a first side of the coil assembly (11) in a radial direction towards a rotation axis of the coil assembly (11) and including receiving grooves (5) into which the coil strands are inserted; and a second core (2b) located on a second side of the coil assembly (11) in the radial direction away from the rotation axis and coupled to the first core (2a) to fix a position of the coil assembly (11) as shown in figures 1-3.
However Kawanura teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the receiving grooves are in a shape of a rectangular parallelepiped with one side open.
Saint-Michel et al. teaches the receiving grooves (21) are in a shape of a rectangular parallelepiped with one side open as shown in figures 4, 5, for the advantageous benefit of providing a rotating electrical machine stator that is easy to assemble and allows efficient filling of the slots, while at the same time providing satisfactory electromagnetic performance. There is also a need to further improve the stators of electrical machines and notably to reduce torque ripple.
As to claim 2/1, Kawamura teaches wherein the first core (2a) includes: a first central portion (see annotated figure 6) shaped of a hollow cylinder (see figure 3), and partition walls (21a) protruding in a radial direction from an outer peripheral surface of the first central portion (see annotated figure 6), wherein the partition walls (21a) are spaced apart from each other at regular intervals along the outer peripheral surface of the first central portion (see annotated figure 6), and wherein each receiving groove (5a) is a space formed surrounded by the partition walls (21a) and the first central portion (see annotated figure 6) as shown in figure 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3/2, Kawamura teaches wherein the partition walls (21a) adjacent to each other are formed so that opposing surfaces of the partition walls (21a) are in parallel as shown in figure 5.
As to claim 4/2, Kawamura teaches wherein the second core (2b) includes: a second central portion (see annotated figure 4) shaped of the hollow cylinder (see figure 4), and a coupling protrusion (21b) formed to protrude on an inner peripheral surface of the second central portion (see annotated figure 4), and formed at a corresponding partition wall (21a) of the first core (2a) so that a protruding surface of the coupling protrusion (21b) contacts a protruding surface of the corresponding partition wall (21a) as shown in figures 2, 3 and 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7/4, Kawamura teaches wherein the partition wall (21a) includes a protrusion or a groove (see annotated figure 5) formed on the protruding surface thereof, and wherein the protruding surface of the coupling protrusion (21a) is formed with a protrusion or a groove (see annotated figure 5) to correspond to a shape of one end surface of the partition wall (21a) as shown in figure 5.
As to independent claim 9, Kawamura teaches a method of manufacturing a split-type motor stator (2), the method comprising: (a) manufacturing and preparing a first core (2a) and a second core (2b) to be coupled to each other; (b) assembling the first core (2a) and a coil assembly (11) by inserting a coil strand into a receiving groove (5a) of the first core (2a); and (c) assembling the first core (2a) and the second core (2b) to fix a position of the coil assembly (11) as shown in figures 1-3.
As to claim 12/9, Kawamura teaches wherein the step (a) includes: (a1) forming a protrusion or a groove (see annotated figure 5) on a protruding surface of a partition wall (21a) of the first core (2a); and (a2) forming a protrusion or a groove (see annotated figure 4) corresponding to a shape of one end surface of the partition wall (21a) on a protruding surface of a coupling protrusion (21b) of the second core (2b) as shown in figures 2, 3-5.
As to claim 13/12, Kawamura teaches wherein the step (a) includes: mounting the protruding surface of the coupling protrusion (21b) to contact the protruding surface of the partition wall (21a) as shown in figures 2, 3-5.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (JP6305203) and Saint-Michel et al. (US PG Pub 20210203197)as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Makino (WO2017158700).
As to claim 5/4, Kawamura in view Saint-Michel et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the second core is formed by assembling a plurality of pieces divided in a circumferential direction thereof.
However Makino teaches the second core (32b) is formed by assembling a plurality of pieces (33) divided in a circumferential direction thereof as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of achieving the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kawamura in view Saint-Michel et al. by using the second core is formed by assembling a plurality of pieces divided in a circumferential direction thereof, as taught by Makino, to achieve the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
As to claim 6/5, Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein a boundary of each piece is formed at a location that does not divide the coupling protrusion.
However Makino teaches a boundary of each piece (33) is formed at a location that does not divide the coupling protrusion (37) as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of achieving the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino by using a boundary of each piece is formed at a location that does not divide the coupling protrusion, as taught by Makino, to achieve the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
As to claim 8/5, Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising: a fixing member coupled to an outer peripheral surface of the second core and compressing the second core in the radial direction.
However Makino teaches a fixing member (4) coupled to an outer peripheral surface of the second core (32) and compressing the second core (32) in the radial direction as shown in figures 1 and 2, for the advantageous benefit of achieving the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino by using a fixing member coupled to an outer peripheral surface of the second core and compressing the second core in the radial direction, as taught by Makino, to achieve the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
As to claim 10/9, Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the step (c) includes: (c1) assembling a plurality of pieces constituting the second core to the first core, respectively, and (c2) inserting a fixing member into an outer peripheral surface of the second core to compress the second core in a radial direction thereof.
However Makino teaches the step (c) includes: (c1) assembling a plurality of pieces (33) constituting the second core (32b) to the first core (33a), respectively, and (c2) inserting a fixing member (4) into an outer peripheral surface of the second core (32b) to compress the second core (32b) in a radial direction thereof as shown in figures 1-3, for the advantageous benefit of achieving the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino by using the step (c) includes: (c1) assembling a plurality of pieces constituting the second core to the first core, respectively, and (c2) inserting a fixing member into an outer peripheral surface of the second core to compress the second core in a radial direction thereof, as taught by Makino, to achieve the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
As to claim 11/10, Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein a boundary of each piece is formed at a location that does not divide a coupling protrusion of the second core, and Wherein the coupling protrusion of the second core is formed at a corresponding partition wall of the first core so that a protruding surface of the coupling protrusion contacts a protruding surface of the corresponding partition wall.
However Makino teaches a boundary of each piece (33) is formed at a location that does not divide a coupling protrusion (37) of the second core (32b), and wherein the coupling protrusion (37) of the second core (32b) is formed at a corresponding partition wall (35) of the first core (32a) so that a protruding surface of the coupling protrusion (37) contacts a protruding surface of the corresponding partition wall (35) as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of achieving the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kawamura and Saint-Michel et al. in view of Makino by using the step (c) includes: (c1) assembling a plurality of pieces constituting the second core to the first core, respectively, and (c2) inserting a fixing member into an outer peripheral surface of the second core to compress the second core in a radial direction thereof, as taught by Makino, to achieve the rotary electric machine with a high space factor.
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 JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 EST.
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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights