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 filed 04/26/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A copy of cited foreign patent document (DE 102021100731 U) was not provided.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching invention I and II would not impose and undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Furthermore, a reference that is applicable to the product would not necessarily applicable to all the steps as claimed in the process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, claims 1-7 remained pending and claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the specific arrangement of protruding ends of the coils" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recited: first winding pattern comprises n>1 parallel coils in each of the m phase windings. However, the variables n and m are not clearly defined by the claim.
Claim 3 recited variables n>1 and m and therefore is rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the m contacting tongues" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bridge elements" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the corresponding defined positions" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magri et al. (US 2016/0181881 A1) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2012/0126646 A1).
RE claim 1, Magri teaches a contacting kit (Figs.2a, 2b) for implementing contact between an energy supply device (power converter, see ¶ 26) and coils 20 of an electric machine (Fig.1) for a motor vehicle (intended use), the contacting kit comprising:
a first contacting set 32 (Figs.6-8) having a multiplicity of contacting elements 32 (Figs.6-8) which establish contact between the energy supply device (power converter, see ¶ 26) and an arrangement of protruding ends 22, 24 of the coils 20, which have been drawn into a stator 8;
a second contacting set 32 (Figs.-11) having a multiplicity of contacting elements which establish contact between the energy supply device (power converter, see ¶ 26) and the specific arrangement of protruding ends 22, 24 of the coils 20; and
a support body 36 into which the multiplicity of contacting elements 32 of the first contacting set and the multiplicity of contacting elements 32 of the second contacting set are insertable (Figs.2a, 2b);
wherein the multiplicity of contacting elements of the first contacting set and the multiplicity of contacting elements of the second contacting set are designed such that, irrespective of which of the multiplicity of contacting elements 32 of the first contacting set or the multiplicity of contacting elements 32 of the second contacting set is inserted into the support body 36, the multiplicity of contacting elements 32 are exposed at defined positions 60 on an outer surface of the support body 36 for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends 22, 24 of the coils 20, such that, for the specific arrangement of protruding ends of the coils 20.
Magri does not teach the different contacting element can be adjusted according to a first or a second winding pattern of the coils is implemented by the selective insertion of the multiplicity of contacting elements of the first contacting set or the multiplicity of contacting elements of the second contacting set into the support body.
In other words, while Magri disclosed all the structural limitation (first/second contacting elements), Magri does not teach the first/second contacting element can be selected base on different winding pattern.
However, Magri suggests that the stator winding pattern can be adjusted according to a predetermined wiring diagram (¶ 56), such that the ends 22,24 (of coil) are easily accessible by the automatic machines that carry out the mechanical/electric attachment (¶ 59).
In addition, Nakagawa suggests that the connection method of the stator can be appropriately selected (star, delta) such that the connection structure can also be selected from any number of types of connection (parallel, series) (¶ 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Magri by having a first or a second winding pattern of the coils is implemented by the selective insertion of the multiplicity of contacting elements of the first contacting set or the multiplicity of contacting elements of the second contacting set into the support body, as suggested by Magri and Nakagawa, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE claim 2/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the multiplicity of contacting elements of the first contacting set further comprising: m contacting tongues for connection both to the energy supply device and to m phase windings of the first winding pattern formed from the coils, and at least one bridge element that forms a star point of a star connection; wherein the first winding pattern comprises n>1 parallel coils in each of the m phase windings, and, for the corresponding implementation, the multiplicity of contacting elements of the first contacting set and the support body are configured such that, after the multiplicity of contacting elements of the first contacting set have been inserted into the support body: - each of the m contacting tongues is exposed at n of the defined positions on the outer surface of the support body for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends of the coils, and - the star-point-forming bridge element is exposed at n*m of the defined positions on the outer surface of the support body for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends of the coils.
RE claim 3/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the multiplicity of contacting elements of the second contacting set further comprising: m contacting tongues for connection both to the energy supply device and to m phase windings of the second winding pattern formed from the coils; a bridge element, which forms a star point of a star connection, and a multiplicity of serial bridge elements; wherein the second winding pattern comprises n>1 serially connected coils in each of the m phase windings, and, for the corresponding implementation, the multiplicity of contacting elements of the second contacting set and the support body are configured such that, after the contacting elements have been inserted into the support body: - each of the m contacting tongues is exposed at one of the defined positions on the outer surface of the support body for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends of the coils; - the star-point-forming bridge element is exposed at m defined positions on the outer surface of the support body for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends of the coils; and - each of the serial bridge elements is exposed at two defined positions on the outer surface of the support body for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends of the coils.
RE claim 4/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, a third contacting set having a multiplicity of contacting elements which establish contact between the energy supply device and the specific arrangement of protruding ends of the coils, which have been drawn into the stator; and a fourth contacting set having a multiplicity of contacting elements which establish contact between the energy supply device and the specific arrangement of protruding ends of the coils; wherein the multiplicity of contacting elements of the third contacting set and the multiplicity of contacting elements of the fourth contacting set are designed such that, irrespective of which of the multiplicity of contacting elements of the third contacting set or the multiplicity of contacting elements of the fourth contacting set is inserted into the support body, the contacting elements are exposed at the defined positions on the outer surface of the support body for the purposes of contacting the protruding ends of the coils, such that, for the specific arrangement of the protruding ends of the coils, a third or a fourth winding pattern of the coils is implemented by the selective insertion of the multiplicity of contacting elements of the third contacting set or the multiplicity of contacting elements of the fourth contacting set.
Claims 5 and 6 are allowable for their dependency on claim 4.
RE claim 7/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, m openings for the m contacting tongues, into which openings the contacting tongues are inserted in a predetermined direction; wherein the contacting tongues have bent portions which, after the contacting tongues have been inserted, are exposed at the corresponding defined positions on the outer surface, and, after the contacting tongues have been inserted, the bridge elements are inserted into the openings in the support body such that the bridge elements run in a plane that is offset with respect to the contacting tongues, cross the contacting tongues, and are exposed at corresponding positions from among the defined positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights