DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/675,972, filed on 28 May, 2024, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 May, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 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 “a chain-like shape” in line 21. However, another “chain-like shape” (exact same terminology) was claimed in line 17, such that a reader cannot distinguish whether these are the same chain-like shapes, or if the new one in line 21 is something else. The Examiner believes that the ambiguity could easily be remedied by changing the limitation in line 21 from “a chain-like shape” to “the chain-like shape” since line 17 already provided antecedent basis for a chain-like shape.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flexible circuit board" in lines 22-23 and 24 (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More than one flexible circuit boards were established in the preamble, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know which one was being referred to – since it seems Applicant is attempting to recite them individually (which has been the Examiner’s interpretation for examination on the merits), a different article/adjective would better serve – it seems that the easiest remedy would be to change “the” to “each” as this would not only take care of the antecedent basis problem but would also make the last clause of claim 1 much more effective, while being no less broad.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the flexible circuit board" in lines 8-9 and 9-10 (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As with the same issue in claim 1, the Examiner believes that the word “the” should be changed to “each” – this would give the word “longer” (in line 9) a basis of comparison, which it currently does not sufficiently have. If Applicant wishes to change the word “the” to something other than “each”, they are asked to please consider providing a comparative basis for the word “longer” in line 9.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the flexible circuit board" in lines 2-3 and 5 (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As this rejection is the same as the rejections of the same language in claims 1 and 2, the Examiner will not keep reiterating the rationale.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the flexible circuit board" in lines 2-3 and 4-5 (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As this rejection is the same as the rejections of the same language in claims 1 and 2, the Examiner will not keep reiterating the rationale.
The above-rejected-to limitations “the flexible circuit board” have the further detriment of making the claims sound as if the same circuit board is being placed at different distances from the central axis.
Claims 5-6 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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)(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.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (US 2024/0413689 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yamamoto, in its eighteenth embodiment of figs. 53-55 and ¶ 0229-0262, teaches a board laminate [coil assembly 32] comprising a plurality of strip-shaped flexible circuit boards [first, second, and third strip members 34] bent into a cylindrical shape [fig. 53] and stacked in a radial direction [R] of the cylinder (see ¶ 0230 which recites, inter alia, “the coil assembly 32 includes a plurality of strip members 34 rolled in the circumferential direction of the coil assembly 32 into a circular shape and stacked on one another in the radial direction of the coil assembly 34…”), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
677
1249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in a plurality of the flexible circuit boards [34], each flexible circuit board has a longer length of the insulating sheet as each flexible circuit board is placed further from a central axis of the cylinder (see ¶ 0259 which recites, inter alia, “the second strip member 34 is longer in length than the first strip member 34 in the circumferential direction of the coil assembly 32. Similarly, the third strip member 34 is longer in length than the second strip member 34” – it is noted by the Examiner that the relationship of the boards 34 depicted in fig. 54 geometrically requires the outer board to be the longest, circumferentially, the inner board the shortest, circumferentially, with the middle board intermediate in circumferential length between the outer and inner).
{In the reference, the eighteenth embodiment of figs. 53-55 and ¶ 0229-0262 builds on (conceptually and technologically) while being an alternative to or improvement on (particularly in that multiple shorter strips are stacked in lieu of one longer strip being rolled) the main/base embodiment, literally the “first embodiment” of figs. 1-13 and ¶ 0081-0130. In ¶ 0229, during the introduction to the eighteenth embodiment, the reference is careful to state “the motor 10 according to the eighteenth embodiment will be described below. The same reference numbers or symbols as those in the first embodiment will refer to the same parts, and explanation thereof in detail will be omitted here” (emphasis added by the Examiner).
The Examiner, because figs. 53-55 and ¶ 0081-0130 (eighteenth embodiment discussion) do not go into detail about the continuous wire with its first and second continuous portions, as well as other particulars required by the claim limitations, must default to the evidence available in figs. 1-13 and ¶ 0081-0130 to make the case of what, vis-à-vis claim 1, is actually entailed in the laminate components described and shown in the eighteenth embodiment. The authors of the reference have taken the extra and overt step of making it definitive that the embodiments are identical in the places they are identical, and the result is that they can be only interpreted as different when and where they are shown/described as different. There is no evidence in the reference to suggest that the eighteenth embodiment cannot be understood and completely developed from, as well as solely from, the description of the first embodiment and its associated drawings, complemented by the featured elements highlighted in figs. 53-55 and ¶ 0081-0130 for how the latter diverge from the former. Thus, the Office takes the position that the relevant features of the claims that are not supplied explicitly in the discussion of the eighteenth embodiment, but are explicitly laid out for complete understanding and operability in the discussion of the first embodiment, do exist in the eighteenth embodiment, and function identically and have the same relationships with their counterparts as taught in the first embodiment}.
Turning to figs. 1-13 and ¶ 0081-0130 (first embodiment), Yamamoto teaches (see joint annotated excerpt of figs. 3-4 below) wherein each flexible circuit board [34] includes a strip-shaped insulating sheet (defined by visible/top and obverse surfaces 34A and 34B – ¶ 0088 recites “the strip member 34 is of a belt-shape and made from an electrically insulating material” – see also ¶ 0094) and at least one continuous wire [coils 16, specifically including U-phase 16U] formed on the insulating sheet [34/34A/34B],
PNG
media_image2.png
279
1187
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the continuous wire includes a first continuous portion [42U1 comprising the combined-and-in series A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6] (repeated as shown in fig. 4 and in fig. 8 for 42U1 – referring now to the joint annotated excerpts of figs. 6 and 8 attached below, wherein the Examiner has drawn black circles around the 34A-side section and gray circles around the labels for the 34B-side portion, as well as highlighting the continuous portions 42U1 and 42U2 – see ¶ 0094, which recites “the first straight sections A1, the second straight sections A2, and the third straight sections A3 are, as can be seen in figs. 4 and 6, formed on the first surface 34A of the strip member. The fourth straight sections A4, the fifth straight sections A5, and the sixth straight sections A6 are formed on the second surface 34B of the strip member 34…” – it is noted that the Examiner is using the single-coil version of fig. 7 and ¶ 0104 for simplicity instead of the dual-coil version of fig. 6 – also, the Examiner added additional lines, gray and black, to distinguish the repeating segments of 42U1 and 42U2, respectively)
PNG
media_image3.png
359
1061
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a second continuous portion [42U2 comprising mirror-image, identical, series elements corresponding to 42U1], each formed by a plurality of partial wires [A1/A2/A3 and A4/A5/A6] formed on two opposing main surfaces [34A/34B respectively for 42U1 and 34B/34A respectively for 42U2] of the insulating sheet [34] (see ¶ 0106 – 42U2 is described with reference to 42U1, while 42U1 and 42U1 can both be understood from fig. 7), the partial wires formed on each main surface being alternately connected in cascade via vias {¶ 0094 recites “the third straight sections A3 and the fourth straight sections A4 are electrically connected together using via holes or through-holes (not shown)…”}, the first continuous portion [42U1] and the second continuous portion [42U2] extending in a longitudinal direction [C] of the insulating sheet (see fig. 8 – “C” indicates the longitudinal direction in figs. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 53),
PNG
media_image4.png
504
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the first continuous portion [42U1] and the second continuous portion [42U2] cross in a chain-like shape (labeled by the Examiner in the joint annotated excerpt of figs. 3, 8, and 53 above) in a projection plan view (the view of fig. 8) seen in a normal direction of a main surface [34A] (although 34/34A/34B are not shown in fig. 8, fig. 8 is still based on fig. 4 which does establish the strip and its surfaces) of the insulating sheet [34] without electrical continuity with each other (when/where they cross, they will be on opposite surfaces of the strip-shaped insulating sheet) to form a plurality of annular portions (see figs. 53 and 3) ranged in a chain-like shape (see fig. 8 – again, the Examiner is relying on a mental construction wherein fig. 53 of the eighteenth embodiment is a modified form of fig. 3 of the first embodiment, and which a person of ordinary skill in the art could easily understand given only the standard knowledge in the motor arts and the disclosure of the reference).
In the event that it could be successfully argued that the eighteenth embodiment of Yamamoto does not intrinsically contain 100.00% of the claim limitations of claim 1 that the Examiner relied on the first embodiment for in the rejection above, the Office asserts that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate of Yamamoto, eighteenth embodiment, while incorporating the continuous wire including first and second portions formed by a plurality of partial wires formed on two opposing main surfaces of the insulating sheet, alternately connected in cascade via vias, and extending in a longitudinal direction while crossing in a chain-like shape, as taught by Yamamoto, first embodiment, in order to make a completed laminate conforming to the teachings of Yamamoto in general, to achieve all advantages purported in the relevant segments of the reference, and particularly while enjoying the modularity, with associated ease of manufacture, of the eighteenth embodiment while availing of the foundational content provided in the discussion of the first embodiment.
With respect to claim 3/1, Yamamoto teaches the laminate of claim 1, Yamamoto eighteenth embodiment (figs. 53-55 and ¶ 0081-0130) further teaches wherein in a plurality of the flexible circuit boards [34], each flexible circuit board [34] has a longer length of each of a plurality of the annular portions (see ¶ 0259 which recites, inter alia, “the second strip member 34 is longer in length than the first strip member 34 in the circumferential direction of the coil assembly 32. Similarly, the third strip member 34 is longer in length than the second strip member 34” – it is noted by the Examiner that the relationship of the boards 34 depicted in fig. 54 geometrically requires the outer board to be the longest, circumferentially, the inner board the shortest, circumferentially, with the middle board intermediate in circumferential length between the outer and inner) arranged in a chain-like shape (see figs. 3 and 8 in the rejection of claim 1 for chain-like shape above – fig. 55 below is a side-view of the chain-like shapes, whose wire-cross-sections are designated by “16” and by gray octagons) as the flexible circuit board [34] is placed further from the central axis (not visible in fig. 55 but it would be the origin of the “R” axis shown at the top of fig. 55) of the cylinder, the length being measured in the longitudinal direction [C] of the insulating sheet (sheets labeled by the Examiner in fig. 55 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
346
461
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4/1, Yamamoto teaches the laminate of claim 1, Yamamoto eighteenth embodiment further teaches wherein in a plurality of the flexible circuit boards [34], each flexible circuit board [34] has a larger width (drawn and labeled “L” by the Examiner in the fig. 55 excerpt above) of the partial wire [A1/A2/A3/A4/A5/A6] (it is presumed that it is portions A2 and A5 shown in cross-section in fig. 55, and the Examiner has labeled them thus, but even if the gray octagons were sections A1 and A6 or A3 and A4, respectively, the claim condition would be met) constituting the continuous wire [16/16U] as the flexible circuit board [34] is placed further from the central axis (not visible in fig. 55 but it would be the origin of the “R” axis shown at the top of fig. 55) of the cylinder.
With respect to claim 5/1, Yamamoto teaches the laminate of claim 1, Yamamoto eighteenth embodiment further teaches wherein each of the plurality of the flexible circuit boards [34] includes a plurality of the continuous wires [16U] (now referring to the new annotated fig. 54 excerpt below) formed at mutually shifted (by ά -- the Examiner has circled in gray the offsets ά in the fig. 54 excerpt – see ¶ 0231 which recites “in fig. 54 the first to third layers are illustrated as being offset from each other in the axial direction of the coil…” which corresponds to the offset also shown in fig. 55 where each continuous wire 16/16U begins at the end of the overlap 34M which are mutually shifted in position along the longitudinal direction C) positions in the longitudinal direction [C] of the insulating sheet (sheet not shown in fig. 54 but established in the rejections above).
PNG
media_image6.png
487
675
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6/1, Yamamoto teaches the laminate of claim 1, Yamamoto first embodiment further teaches a rotating electrical machine [electric motor 10] comprising:
a stator [14] including a board laminate [32] according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and also ¶ 0081-0082); and
a rotor [12] placed inside a cylinder formed by the board laminate [32] (it is noted that fig. 1 is symmetrical about the z-axis).
PNG
media_image7.png
472
451
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of JP 6342092 B1 (reference provided with machine translation).
With respect to claim 2/1, Yamamoto teaches the laminate of claim 1, Yamamoto embodiment eighteen further teaches wherein each of a plurality of the flexible circuit boards [34] includes (as shown by fig. 54 even though 34 is omitted from actual fig. 54 – see fig. 4 and rejection of claim 1 wherein it is shown that the elements of fig. 54 do include the boards 34) at least one input terminal [128] that is placed on at least one of two long sides (see the new annotated excerpt of figs. 54 and 55 attached below wherein the Examiner has labeled the long sides and the longitudinal end of the sheet) extending in a longitudinal direction [C] of the insulating sheet [34] and protrudes from the long side toward an outside (upward in the Z direction) of the insulating sheet [34], and in a plurality of the flexible circuit boards [34], each flexible circuit board [34 ] has a longer distance as each flexible circuit board is placed further from the central axis of the cylinder (this limitation was met in the rejection of claim 1 above and will not be repeated here), the distance being measured in a longitudinal direction of the insulating sheet from one longitudinal end of the insulating sheet to the input terminal [128].
PNG
media_image8.png
551
1191
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Yamamoto omits teaching wherein each input terminal is part of or accompanied by a protrusion. It is noted that fig. 4 does appear to show the input terminals accompanied by a protrusion, but the protrusion is not described.
PNG
media_image9.png
288
739
media_image9.png
Greyscale
JP 6342092 B1 discloses a stator comprising a stator composed of a coil body [42] comprising a flexible circuit board [1] that is wound to form a cylindrical shape (see ¶ 0013 of the provided translation and figs. 1 and 3), wherein the flexible circuit board has a wiring pattern [20] on it that extends lengthwise along the circuit board [1], and wherein each circuit board has input terminals.
PNG
media_image10.png
348
610
media_image10.png
Greyscale
JP 6342092 B1 teaches wherein the input terminals (input terminals labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 4 excerpt attached below) is part of or accompanied by a protrusion [terminal connecting part 7] (see ¶ 0017 which recites “a terminal connecting part 7 that can protrude in a direction along the central axis C is formed on the printed circuit board 1… when the printed circuit board 1 is formed in a tubular shape…”).
PNG
media_image11.png
216
723
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate of Yamamoto, while incorporating the protrusion of JP 6342092 B1, in order to mechanically support and provide an insulated substrate for the input terminals, as is well known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto teaches another embodiment (fourth embodiment) in figs. 18-22 wherein a single continuous wire comprises both continuous portions by going down to the end of the strip, shunting via 74, and returning back to the beginning of the strip. Although this feature was not claimed, the Examiner enthusiastically requests Applicant to review this embodiment of the reference before responding. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify any other embodiments of Yamamoto, including the first and eighteenth embodiments, with this feature of the fourth embodiment.
PNG
media_image12.png
612
804
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2-5 of US 2013/0300241 A1 are relevant to the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image13.png
238
268
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
209
268
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
100
447
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2A, 2B, and 4 of US 2019/0245401 A1 are relevant to the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image16.png
265
363
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
195
340
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
135
364
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834