DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Application No. 18637575 filed on 04/17/2024 are presented for examination.
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 5-6 of the Arguments filed on 05/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102, and 103 with regards to the prior art Adra have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hishida et al. in view of Mita et al. as detailed below:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 11-12, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida et al. (US 20200195075; Hereinafter, “Hishida”) in view of Mita Toru et al. (JP 2009-017632; Hereinafter, “Mita”).
Regarding claim 1: Hishida discloses (in fig. 13-17) a stator coil (5) comprising: a wound (abstract, line 4) uninsulated conductor (insulator film 5b is excluded in the embodiment in fig. 13-17; para [0136]) comprising a plurality of uninsulated turns (5a) having substantially straight sides (the ling sides of coil 5 in fig. 15A) and opposing ends (the short ends of coil 5); and
insulating material (71- 73) arranged between the uninsulated conductor turns (fig. 15-16, and para [0137-0139]) and wound together with the turns (of coil 5) of the uninsulated conductor (5a).
Hishida does not show opposing curved ends.
Mita discloses stator coil (5) a flat conductor without an insulating coating (tech-solution) having substantially straight sides (in slots 8) and opposing curved ends (the axial ends of coil 5; fig. 1-2,4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the coil of Hishida to have curved ends as disclosed by Mita to increase the surface of heat exchange of the coil, thus improve the efficiency of the stator.
Further, Hishida discloses the claimed invention except for the curved shape of the ends. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the opposing ends, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Hishida further discloses the insulating material (71-73) is in the form of a flat tape (fig. 15-16).
Regarding claim 7: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 6 and Hishida further discloses the flat tape (71-73) is provided below the conductor during winding (abstract, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 8: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 6 and Hishida further discloses the flat tape (71-73) is provided above the conductor during winding (abstract, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 9: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Mita further discloses the insulating material (9) is a U-shaped strip (fig. 3) sized to receive the conductor (5A) and extend from below the conductor and up the sides (fig. 3-4) of the conductor (5A).
Regarding claim 11: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Hishida further discloses further insulating material (the overmold of fig. 17) provided around the wound coil (fig. 17).
Regarding claim 12: Hishida discloses a method of forming a stator coil (5), the method comprising: winding an uninsulated conductor insulator film 5b is excluded in the embodiment in fig. 13-17; para [0136]) in a plurality of uninsulated turns (1st to 5th turns as seen in fig. 15-17) defined by opposing substantially straight sides (the ling sides of coil 5 in fig. 15A) and opposing ends (the ling sides of coil 5 in fig. 15A); and winding an insulating material (71-73) located below or above (abstract) the conductor (5a) while the uninsulated turns are formed (fig. 15-17).
Hishida does not show opposing curved ends.
Mita discloses stator coil (5) a flat conductor without an insulating coating (tech-solution) having substantially straight sides (in slots 8) and opposing curved ends (the axial ends of coil 5; fig. 1-2,4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the coil of Hishida to have curved ends as disclosed by Mita to increase the surface of heat exchange of the coil, thus improve the efficiency of the stator.
Further, Hishida discloses the claimed invention except for the curved shape of the ends. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the opposing ends, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 12 and Hishida further discloses providing additional insulating material (the overmold of fig. 17) over the completed coil (fig. 17).
Regarding claim 17: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 12 and Hishida further discloses the insulating material (71-73) is in the form of a flat tape (fig. 15-17).
Regarding claim 18: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 17 and Hishida further discloses the flat tape (71-73) is provided either above or below the conductor during winding (abstract).
Regarding claim 19: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 12 and Mita further discloses the insulating material (9) is a U-shaped strip sized to receive the conductor (5A) and extend from below the conductor and up the sides (fig. 3-4) of the conductor (5A).
Claim(s) 2-5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida in view of Mita and in further view of Sivasubramaniam et al. (US 2010/0096944; Hereinafter, “Sivasubramaniam”).
Regarding claim 2-5: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the conductor comprises a plurality of strands of conductive material; is a bundle of the plurality of strands; the plurality of strands are twisted together to form the bundle; and the conductor is a Litz wire.
Sivasubramaniam discloses that the conductor (10) comprises a plurality of strands of conductive material (“many wires”; para [0017]); is a bundle of the plurality of strands (“many wires”; para [0017]); the plurality of strands are twisted together (“twist pattern”; para [0017]) to form the bundle; and the conductor is a Litz wire (para [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the conductor of Hishida in view of Mita with the conductor comprises a plurality of strands of conductive material; is a bundle of the plurality of strands; the plurality of strands are twisted together to form the bundle; and the conductor is a Litz wire as taught by Sivasubramaniam to reduce the losses and to reduce back emf (para [0017]).
Regarding claim 16: Hishida in view of Mita disclose the limitations of claim 12 but does not disclose the conductor comprises a plurality of strands of conductive material.
Sivasubramaniam discloses that the conductor (10) comprises a plurality of strands of conductive material (“many wires”; para [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the conductor of Hishida in view of Mita with the conductor comprises a plurality of strands of conductive material as taught by Sivasubramaniam to reduce the losses and to reduce back emf (para [0017]).
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida in view of Mita and in further view of Azeyangi Toru et al. (JP 2015177598; Hereinafter, “Toru”).
Regarding claim 10/1: Hishida in view of Mita discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the insulating material is spliced at locations corresponding to the curved ends.
Toru discloses that the insulating material (700A; fig. 7A, 7B; para [0046-0053]) is spliced at locations corresponding to the curved ends (annotated fig. 7A, 7B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coil of Hishida in view of Mita with the insulating material is spliced at locations corresponding to the curved ends as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, without the insulator being under stress or being torn.
Regarding claim 13: Hishida in view of Mita discloses the limitations of claim 12 but does not disclose forming cuts in the insulating material at locations corresponding to the curved ends.
Toru discloses forming cuts in the insulating material at locations corresponding to the curved ends (see the “splice” in the annotated fig. 7A, 7B above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the coil of Hishida in view of Mita with insulating material with cuts in the insulating material at locations corresponding to the curved ends as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, without the insulator being under stress or being torn.
Regarding claim 14/12: Hishida in view of Mita discloses the limitations of claim 12 but does not disclose the insulating material forms side flanges extending beyond the conductor width and the method further comprising pressing the side flanges against the sides of the wound coil.
Toru discloses the insulating material forms side flanges extending beyond the conductor width (see sections B, and C) and the method further comprising pressing the side flanges against the sides of the wound coil (see for example sections G, and D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the coil of Hishida in view of Mita with the insulating material forms side flanges extending beyond the conductor width and the method further comprising pressing the side flanges against the sides of the wound coil as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, evading shorts, thus increase safety and increase service life of the stator.
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 AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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, Tulsidas 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights