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 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 2 and 6-8 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 2 recites the limitation "the portion between the adjacent stator teeth" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bottom wall" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the side of the stator teeth" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the side wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the length of the cross section" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the width" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the linear distance" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the distance between the two ends of the side wall" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "angle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "angle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-8 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 2.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2013/0106232 A1) in view of Ohsugi et al. (US 2022/0407371 A1).
RE claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a stator structure 3 (Figs.1, 2) comprising: a stator core 10, wherein the stator core 10 comprises a stator yoke 31 and a plurality of stator teeth 33 (Figs.1-3), the plurality of stator teeth 33 are arranged on the stator yoke 31, a stator slot 60 is formed between each two adjacent stator teeth 33, each stator tooth 22 comprises a tooth body (30A) and a tooth boot 34, the tooth body 30A is arranged on the stator yoke 31, and the tooth boot 34 is arranged on the tooth body 33; and a winding 12 arranged on the plurality of stator teeth 33, wherein the winding comprises flat wires 12 wound on the plurality of stator teeth 33 in a concentrated manner (Fig.4), the flat wires 12 are wound on the plurality of stator teeth in multiple layers (12a-12d), and the number of flat wires in the layer (12d) of the winding away from the plurality of stator teeth is not more than the number of flat wires in the layer 12a of the winding close to the plurality of stator teeth 33, wherein the width of the side of the tooth body close to the tooth boot is 2×t1, the width of the side of the tooth body close to the stator yoke is 2×t2 (Fig.5).
Kobayashi does not teach:
1.5×t1≥t2≥t1.
Left hand equation: 3×t1≥2×t2
In other words, t2/t1 ≤ 1.5
Therefore, the equation indicated that the top width (t2) is at most 1.5 the bottom width (t1). Also, the equation also means that the top width (t2) can be equal to the bottom width (t1)
Ohsugi teaches 1.5×t1≥t2≥t1 (see Fig.3 and ¶ 85 for width TW of the width of the tooth is constant regardless of places in the radial direction in the tooth straight line region). Ohsugi further suggests that widths of the teeth are determined such that magnetic flux density in tooth becomes constant in each tooth under the selected operating condition, and the stator core is designed. This makes it possible to reduce the variation in the magnetic flux density of the stator core under the selected operating condition (¶ 119) such that it is possible to reduce the variation in the magnetic flux density and to suppress iron losses in regions where the motor is not magnetically saturated (¶ 118).
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 Kobayashi by having 1.5×t1≥t2≥t1, as taught and suggested by Ohsugi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 3/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches along the radial direction of the stator core, adjacent flat wires 12 fit each other (Fig.5).
RE claim 4/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches along the circumferential direction of the stator core, adjacent flat wires 12 fit each other (Fig.5).
RE claim 5/1, as discussed above, Ohsugi teaches the stator tooth is a trapezoid stator tooth or a parallel stator tooth (Figs.3a, 3b).
RE claim 10/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches an insulation piece 11 is provided between the stator core 10 and the winding 12 (Fig.5).
RE claim 12/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches a motor 1 (¶ 48) comprising: a rotor structure 4; and the stator structure 3 according to claim 1 (Fig.1).
RE claim 13, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches electrical equipment (see ¶ 48 for electric power steering) comprising the motor according to claim 12.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rau et al. (US 2010/0295390 A1).
RE claim 2/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches the stator yoke 31 faces one side of the stator teeth 33, and the portion 36 between the adjacent stator teeth is the bottom wall 36 of the stator slot, 60 the side 33A of the stator teeth 33 facing the stator slot is the side wall of the stator slot; and the length of the cross section of the flat wire is x, the width thereof is y, the linear distance between the ends of two side walls facing the bottom wall is n, the linear distance between the ends of the two side walls away from the bottom wall is m, and along the radial direction of the stator core, the distance between the two ends of the side wall is h,
Kobayashi does not teach 0.25×h÷m<x÷y<6×h÷n.
However, Rau suggests that the dimensions of slots 114 and teeth 116 are result effective variables (bn1, bn2, sn, bz1, bz2) whose values can be adjusted to optimized design of tooth width to yoke height, of tooth width to slot width and/or of the cooling effect of the stator is achieved (¶ 5).
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 Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi by having the dimension as shown in the equation noted above, as suggested by Rau, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE claim 6/2, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi and Rau has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches the bottom wall 36 is a plane, a curved surface, a combination of a plurality of planes, a combination of a plurality of curved surfaces or a combination of a plurality of curved surfaces and planes (see Fig.5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 2024/0305155 A1).
RE claim 9/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi does not teach the numbers of the flat wires in different windings within the same stator slot are the same.
Tsukamoto teaches the numbers of the wires in different windings within the same stator slot are the same (one wire with 80 turns, see Fig.1). Tsukamoto further suggests that the number of wire and turn can be set according to required characteristics of the motor, the applied voltage, and the area of the slot (¶ 52).
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 Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi by having the numbers of the flat wires in different windings within the same stator slot are the same, as suggested by Tsukamoto, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. (US 2009/0072653 A1).
RE claim 11/1, Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi has been discussed above. Kobayashi further teaches the flat wire 12 comprises: a wire.
Kobayashi does not teach an insulation layer provided on the outside of the wire.
Harada teaches an insulation layer 11 provided on the outside of the wire (A, B), so that the two conductive wires are bonded to each other with the insulating films (¶ 19).
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 Kobayashi in view of Ohsugi by having an insulation layer provided on the outside of the wire, as taught by Harada, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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 7/6, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the bottom wall is a plane, and the angle between the bottom wall and the side wall is β≥π÷2−π÷Z1, wherein Z1 is the number of the stator teeth.
RE claim 8/6, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the bottom wall is a curved surface, and the angle between the side wall and the tangent to the bottom wall passing through any intersection of the bottom wall and the side wall is β≥π÷2−π÷Z1, wherein Z1 is the number of the stator teeth.
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