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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be changed to “wherein dispensed a mesh; a metal wire wound around the
Claim 11 should be changed to “the thickness of the encapsulated molding compound is from about 0.1 mm to about 3.0 mm.” since molding compound is recited in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
In claim 8 “the molding compound has a thermal conductivity K1 of a minimum value of about 0.5 W/mK (to 10 W/mK)” is unclear. It’s unclear if the minimum value is about 0.5 W/mK or about 0.5 to 10 W/mK. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as the minimum value is about 0.5 W/mK.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geumseong (KR2019930016469, “Geumseong”, using translation in IDS).
Re claim 1, Geumseong discloses a stator assembly comprising: a
plurality of slots 11 across the inner wall of the stator assembly 10 (fig 3, “Summary”), wherein dispensed a mesh 40 (figs 3-4, “Summary” & claim 1); a metal wire 20 wound around the fiber mesh forming a coil (fig 3, “Summary”, 20 wound around 40 radially outward of 40); and a molding compound 30 encapsulating the stator assembly (fig 3, “Summary”).
Re claim 16, Geumseong discloses a high productivity one shot molding method of making a stator assembly comprising:
providing a plurality of slots 11 along the inner diameter of the stator assembly 10 (fig 3, “Summary”), wherein the slot 11 is a stamped profile (fig 3);
dispensing within each of the slots 11 a mesh 40 covering the entire surface of the slot 11 (figs 3-4, covers entire surface of 11 from a position radially inside 10);
inserting a progressive winding 20 along the mesh 40 (fig 3);
forming a winding configuration (fig 3, finished winding); and
insulating and encapsulating simultaneously the stator assembly with a molding compound 30 (fig 3, “Summary”).
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teachnor (US20200358330, “Teachnor”).
Re claim 1, Teachnor discloses a stator assembly comprising: a
plurality of slots 510 across the inner wall of the stator assembly (fig 5, [0038] & [0040]), wherein dispensed a mesh 508a (fig 5, [0038]);
a metal wire 506 wound around the fiber mesh 508a forming a coil (fig 5, [00]); and
a molding compound encapsulating the stator assembly (fig 5, [0039]).
Re claim 16, Teachnor discloses a high productivity one shot molding method of making a stator assembly comprising:
providing a plurality of slots 510 along the inner diameter of the stator assembly (fig 5, [0038]), wherein the slot 510 is a stamped profile (fig 5);
dispensing within each of the slots a mesh 508a covering the entire surface of the slot 510 (fig 5, [0040]);
inserting a progressive winding 506 along the mesh 508a (fig 5, [0040]);
forming a winding configuration (fig 5, [0039-0040]); and
insulating and encapsulating simultaneously the stator assembly with a molding compound (fig 5, [0039-0040]).
Re claims 2 and 19, Teachnor discloses claims 1 and 16, respectively, as discussed above and further discloses the mesh 508a is selected from the group consisting of nonwoven mesh, woven mesh, nonwoven plastic mesh, woven plastic mesh, nonwoven glass fabric mesh and woven glass fabric mesh (fig 5, [0041], at least woven mesh or woven plastic mesh).
Re claim 5, Teachnor disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the mesh 508a is enabling uniform thin wall electrical insulation (fig 5, [0040], mesh allows molding compound to fill gap between 506 & 510).
Re claim 6, Teachnor disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the mesh 508a is enabling uniform minimum thermal path and high thermal conductivity (fig 5, [0040] & [0042]).
Re claim 14, Teachnor disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses it enables active cooling on the rotational axis direction side from the coil (fig 5, [0042], since molding compound & 508a cover opening of slot).
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, 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 3, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teachnor in view of Zhang et al. (US20160065025, “Zhang”).
Re claims 3 and 4, Teachnor discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to
there is a gap between the slot and the metal wire of at least about 0.1 mm; and
there is a gap between the slot and the metal wire from about 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm.
Zhang discloses there is a gap between the slot and the metal wire of at least about 0.1 mm ([0033], 0.005 inches = 0.127 mm); and
there is a gap between the slot and the metal wire from about 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm ([0033], 0.005 inches = 0.127 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to there is a gap between the slot and the metal wire of at least about 0.1 mm; and there is a gap between the slot and the metal wire from about 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm, as disclosed by Zhang, in order to have a known gap thickness between the slot and metal wire, as demonstrated by Zhang.
Re claim 11, Teachnor discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the encapsulated molding resin (as best understood by examiner the molding compound) fills the gap between the metal wire and slot wall ([0040]), but is silent with respect to the thickness of the encapsulated molding resin is from about 0.1 mm to about 3.0 mm.
Zhang discloses the thickness of the slot liner is from about 0.1 mm to about 3.0 mm ( [0033 ], 0.005 inches = 0.127 mm]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the molding compound of Teachnor so the thickness of the encapsulated molding resin is from about 0.1 mm to about 3.0 mm, as disclosed by Zhang for the slot liner, in order to form the insulation gap between the metal wire and slot wall in a known insulation gap, as demonstrated by Zhang.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teachnor.
Re claims 7 and 20, Teachnor discloses claims 1 and 16, respectively, as discussed above but is silent with respect to the molding compound is selected from the group consisting of epoxy resin, epoxy molding compound, inorganic fillers and mixtures in any combination thereof.
Teachnor discloses in another embodiment discloses the molding compound is selected from the group consisting of epoxy resin, epoxy molding compound, inorganic fillers and mixtures in any combination thereof ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the molding compound of Teachnor to be selected from the group consisting of epoxy resin, epoxy molding compound, inorganic fillers and mixtures in any combination thereof, as disclosed by Teachnor in another embodiment, in order to form the molding compound from known materials, as taught by Teachnor ([0022]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teachnor in view of Beck (US20210351655, “Beck”).
Re claim 8, Teachnor discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the molding compound has a high thermal conductivity ([0042]) but is silent with respect to the molding compound has a thermal conductivity K1 of a minimum value of about 0.5 W/mK (to 10 W/mK).
Beck discloses the molding compound has a thermal conductivity K1 of a minimum value of about 0.5 W/mK (to 10 W/mK) ( as best understood by examiner about 0.5 W/mK; [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the molding compound of Teachnor to have a thermal conductivity K1 of a minimum value of about 0.5 W/mK (to 10 W/mK), as disclosed by Beck, in order to maximize reliability with simultaneously low production cost, as taught by Beck ([0003]).
Re claim 9, Teachnor discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the molding compound exhibits a glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than 150° C.
Beck discloses the molding compound exhibits a glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than 150° C ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the molding compound of Teachnor to exhibit a glass transition temperature (Tg) higher than 150° C, as disclosed by Beck, in order to maximize reliability with simultaneously low production cost, as taught by Beck ([0003]).
Re claim 10, Teachnor discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the molding compound exhibits a compression strength at 25° C from about 25 kpsi to 40 kpsi.
Beck discloses the molding compound exhibits a compression strength at 25° C from about 25 kpsi to 40 kpsi ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the molding compound of Teachnor to exhibits a compression strength at 25° C. from about 25 kpsi to 40 kpsi, as disclosed by Beck, in order to maximize reliability with simultaneously low production cost, as taught by Beck ([0003]).
Claims 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teachnor in view of Fohr et al. (US2020200318212, “Fohr”).
Re claims 12 and 17, Teachnor discloses claims 1 and 16, respectively, as discussed above but is silent with respect to:
the inner wall of the assembly consists of an electrical steel with high electromagnetic property; and
the stator assembly is made of an electrical steel which is a non-grain-oriented electrical steel containing about 2 percent to about 3.5 percent silicon.
Fohr discloses an electrical steel with high electromagnetic property ([0006] & [0003], non-grain oriented electrical steel w/ 3 wt% silicon is high electromagnetic property since it is the most common material for laminated cores of electric machines); and
an electrical steel which is a non-grain-oriented electrical steel containing about 2 percent to about 3.5 percent silicon ([0003]) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the stator assembly of Teachnor so the inner wall of the assembly consists of an electrical steel with high electromagnetic property; and the stator assembly is made of an electrical steel which is a non-grain-oriented electrical steel containing about 2 percent to about 3.5 percent silicon, as disclosed by Fohr, in order to reduce cost by providing a common material for the stator assembly, as taught by Fohr ([0003]).
Re claim 13, Teachnor discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the inner wall of the assembly consists of a metal alloy with high electromagnetic property.
Fohr discloses a magnetic material consists of a metal alloy with high electromagnetic property ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inner wall of the stator assembly of Teachnor to consist of a metal alloy with high electromagnetic property, as disclosed by Fohr, in order to lower material cost and achieve high power density, as taught by Fohr ([0005]).
Re claim 18, Teachnor discloses claim 16 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the stator assembly is made of a metal alloy electrical steel containing magnesium or aluminum.
Fohr discloses a laminated core is made of a metal alloy electrical steel containing magnesium or aluminum ([0006], table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the stator assembly of Teachnor to be made of a metal alloy electrical steel containing magnesium or aluminum, as disclosed by Fohr, in order to lower material cost and achieve high power density, as taught by Fohr ([0005]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teachnor in view of Tanno et al. (WO2021246216, “Tanno”, using US20230231432 for translation).
Re claim 15, Teachnor disclose claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the coil is configured as a distributed winding wound across multiple slots.
Tanno discloses the coil 9 is configured as a distributed winding wound across multiple slots 8 (figs 1-2, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the coil of Tanno to be configured as a distributed winding wound across multiple slots, as disclosed by Tanno, in order to winding the coil in a known manner, as demonstrated by Tanno.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (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 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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834