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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 April 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for multiple reasons:
In Fig.2, the reference number 212 points to windings instead of teeth and the reference number 216 points to teeth instead of “electrically conductive material” [0044].
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a first service loop having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the first subset of the plurality of teeth defining the first phase of the stator winding; and at least one additional service loop having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth defining the at least one additional phase of the stator winding” (claims 7 & 6) and “a first heat resistant cord attaching the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material to the first subset of the plurality of teeth; and at least one additional heat resistant cord attaching the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material to the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth” (claims 8 & 17) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "128" and "220" have both been used to designate a “modular winding set” in the specification ¶[0028] & ¶[0044].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The claims are directed to a stator, per se, not to “methods and apparatus for manufacturing” thereof.
Similarly, the abstract should be amended to a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the stator and what is new with respect to it, not to methods and apparatus for manufacturing thereof. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7 & 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation “a first service loop having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the first subset of the plurality of teeth defining the first phase of the stator winding” and “at least one additional service loop having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth defining the at least one additional phase of the stator winding” is vague and indefinite.
The recitation suggests product-by-process terminology at least in part since it refers to the “service loop” described in the specification ¶[0027] (with reference to Fig.1) “…of predetermined length between adjacent teeth 120 created by manufacturing device 104 and defines it as “the extra length of the wire included in an electromechanical assembly. The purpose of the service loop may be to provide, without limitation, neatness, accessibility, freedom of movement, serviceability, reliability, safety, and the like. In an embodiment, the predetermined length may be equal to the distance between two adjacent teeth 120. In another embodiment, the predetermined length may be greater than the distance between two adjacent teeth 120. In some cases, segment of teeth 116 may include a plurality of service loops. In some cases, service loop may be captured and/or held by installation device 136.”
From this, it appears a “service loop” refers to “extra length” in the stator winding as it is being installed by an installation device and as such appears to be a product-by-process feature.
Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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, 9-10, 13-14, 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg et al. (US 6,941,644) in view of Peterson et al. (US 6,787,948).
Regarding claim 1, Shteynberg teaches a stator, comprising:
a plurality of teeth (poles/segments) 115 defining a stator winding, coupled in an annular frame 120; and
a plurality of (N) phases of the stator winding, wound on the plurality of teeth (for an N phase, M pole motor, N sets of M segments are utilized; c.6:1-2), including:
a first phase (set of segments 15), including a first continuous length of… conductive material (wire) continuously wound on a first subset of the plurality of teeth (i.e., each set of N segments wound with a single continuous length of wire for each set; abstract); and
at least one additional phase (set of segments 16), including at least one additional continuous length…conductive material continuously wound on at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth (abstract; c.3:43-44), wherein the plurality of (N) phases of the stator winding (segments) 15-17 are alternately arranged on the annular frame (c.6:1-9; Figs.6&12-14).
Shteynberg does not teach each conductive material (wire) is “multi-stranded”.
But, Peterson teaches electric motors and generators including a stator 304 with teeth wound with a multi-stranded (litz wire) conductor 314 made by weaving many insulated smaller wires 316 in a pattern such that no single wire 316 occupies the perimeter exclusively, so as to reduce AC losses (c.4:30-44; Figs.4-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to wind Shteynberg with conductive material (wire) that is “multi-stranded” since Peterson teaches multi-stranded wire would have reduced AC losses in motors and generators.
Regarding claim 2, the combination, in particular Shteynberg, teaches the first continuous length of conductive material is continuously wound on the first subset of the plurality of teeth without welds in the first continuous length of conductive material of the first phase since each set of N segments is wound with a single continuous length of wire (abstract), thus implying the absence of welds.
Regarding claim 3, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches the at least one additional continuous length of conductive material is continuously wound on the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth without welds in the at least one additional continuous length of conductive material of the at least one additional phase of the stator winding since each set of N segments is wound with a single continuous length of wire (abstract), thus implying the absence of welds.
Regarding claim 6, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches an end portion of the respective continuous length of conductive material of each of the plurality of (N) phases of the stator winding is coupled to an end portion of the respective continuous length of conductive material of an adjacent phase of the plurality of phases of the stator winding to define a complete phase of the stator winding (i.e., in the context of a three phase motor, for example, the three sets of segments are connected in a wye or delta configuration; c.3:28-32).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches
a “first service loop” [sic] having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the first subset of the plurality of teeth defining the first phase of the stator winding and at least one additional “service loop” [sic] having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth defining the at least one additional phase of the stator winding (not numbered, extra length of wire between segments & wound around posts 27; Figs.2-4).
Regarding claim 9, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches each of the plurality of teeth (e.g., T-shaped poles/segments 115a-d in Fig.10) includes: a tooth body; an inner tooth end at a first end portion of the tooth body, coupled to the annular frame 120, the inner tooth end having a first width; and an outer tooth end at a second end portion of the tooth body the outer tooth end having a second width that is different than the first width.
Regarding claim 10, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches an insulation material (bobbin) positioned on the tooth body of each of the plurality of teeth, between the tooth body and the respective continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material (c.1:30-32; Fig.5).
Regarding claim 13, as noted above with respect to claims 1-3, Shteynberg teaches all the claimed features including a first continuous length of conductive material wound on a first subset of the plurality of teeth without welds in the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material and at least one additional phase, including at least one additional continuous length of conductive material (wire) wound on at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth (poles/segments) 115 without welds in the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material (i.e., N sets of segments are wound with a single continuous length of wire for each set; abstract).
But, Peterson teaches electric motors and generators including a stator 304 with teeth wound with a multi-stranded (litz wire) conductor 314 made by weaving many insulated smaller wires 316 in a pattern such that no single wire 316 occupies the perimeter exclusively, so as to reduce AC losses (c.4:30-44; Figs.4-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to wind Shteynberg with conductive material (wire) that is “multi-stranded” since Peterson teaches multi-stranded wire would have reduced AC losses in motors and generators.
Regarding claim 14, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches the plurality of (N) phases of the stator winding are alternately arranged on the annular frame 120 (Figs.9-10), with an end portion of the respective continuous length of conductive material of each of the plurality of phases of the stator winding coupled to an end portion of the respective continuous length of conductive material of an adjacent phase of the plurality of phases of the stator winding to define a complete phase of the stator winding (i.e., in the context of a three phase motor, for example, the three sets of segments are connected in a wye or delta configuration; c.3:28-32).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches a “first service loop” [sic] having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the first subset of the plurality of teeth defining the first phase of the stator winding and at least one additional “service loop” [sic] having a predetermined length between adjacent teeth of the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth defining the at least one additional phase of the stator winding (not numbered, extra length of wire between segments & wound around posts 27; Figs.2-4).
Regarding claim 18, the combination, in particular Shteynberg teaches each of the plurality of teeth (e.g., T-shaped poles/segments 115a-d in Fig.10) includes: a tooth body; an inner tooth end at a first end portion of the tooth body, coupled to the annular frame 120, the inner tooth end having a first width; and an outer tooth end at a second end portion of the tooth body the outer tooth end having a second width that is different than the first width, wherein an insulation material (bobbin) positioned on the tooth body of each of the plurality of teeth, between the tooth body and the respective continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material (c.1:30-32; Fig.5).
Claims 4-5 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg & Peterson as applied to claims 1 & 13 above, further in view of Mariotto et al. (EP 3,826,147).
The combination, in particular Shteynberg, teaches a first end portion of the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material of the first phase of the stator winding…and a first end portion of the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material of the at least one additional phase of the stator winding, but does not specifically teach the ends are configured to be coupled to at least one inverter for selectively applying power to the first phase and the at least one additional phase of the stator winding;
But, Mariotto teaches a three-phase electric machine 24 for an aircraft propulsion system including a first (A) phase of a stator winding 32-A configured to be coupled to terminals of at least one inverter 74-1 of motor drive 44 for selectively applying power to the first phase of the stator winding; and at least one additional (B) phase of the stator winding 32-B is configured to be coupled to the at least one inverter 74-1 for selectively applying power to the at least one additional phase of the stator winding (¶[0037]-¶[0040]; Figs.1&8). Mariotto’s inverters thus enable the motor driver to provide selective power to the windings to with high power density (¶[0022]; ¶[0040]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to couple the first end portion of the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material of the first phase of the stator winding and the first end portion of the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material of Shteynberg & Peterson to at least one inverter for selectively applying power to the first phase and the at least one additional phase of the stator winding since Mariotto teaches inverters would have provided the means for the motor driver to provide selective power to the windings to with high power density.
Regarding claim 5, the combination, in particular Shteynberg, teaches a second end portion of the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material of the first phase of the stator winding is configured to be coupled to a second end portion of the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material of the at least one additional phase of the stator winding (i.e., in the context of a three phase motor, for example, the three sets of segments are connected in a wye or delta configuration; c.3:28-32).
Claims 8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg & Peterson as applied to claims 1 & 13 above, further in view of Linke (US 2,575,115)
Shteynberg & Peterson do not further teach “a first heat resistant cord attaching the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material to the first subset of the plurality of teeth; and at least one additional heat resistant cord attaching the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material to the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth.”
But, Linke teaches a method for forming and mounting coils of electric motors including a first heat resistant cord (tie-member 9 formed of electrically insulated wire, intrinsically “heat resistant”) attaching a first length of multi-stranded conductive material (coil winding) 5 to a first tooth 2; and at least one additional heat resistant cord 9 attaching the at least one additional multi-stranded conductive material to an additional tooth (c.1:35-54; Fig.1). Link’s heat resistant cords provide support for the coil winding end turns against vibratory forces (c.1:13-20; c.1:32-34).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to attach the first continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material to the first subset of the plurality of teeth; and the at least one additional continuous length of multi-stranded conductive material to the at least one additional subset of the plurality of teeth using first and additional heat resistant cords, respectively, since Linke teaches they would have provided support for the coil winding end turns against vibratory forces.
Claims 11-12 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg & Peterson as applied to claims 1 & 13 above, further in view of Bizjak (US 2,368,630).
The combination, in particular Shteynberg, teaches the stator is installed in an electric motor (c.1:9-11) but the electric motor is not for a propulsor configured to power an electric aircraft, per se.
But, Bizjak teaches a glider with an electric motor 16 used to drive a propulsor 15 configured to power the glider (c.2:13-45; Fig.1). The electric motor thus provides power to an electric aircraft to enable it to take off silently and operate under its own power during flight (c.1:3-7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use the electric motor of Shteynberg & Peterson for a propulsor of an electric aircraft since Bizjak teaches electric motors would have been desirable to provide power to an electric aircraft to enable it to take off silently and operate under its own power during flight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834