DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/681,508, filed on 5 February, 2024, were presented for examination. In the response filed 9 April, 2026, claim 2 was canceled. Claim 1 is 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 April, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Li in view of Hippies and unpatentable over Li in view of Hippies, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Neither Hippies nor Li, nor any other single reference of record in the application, teaches 18 slots and 19 pole pairs a machine that conforms to the rest of claim, as amended. Claim 2 was canceled by Applicant.
Consequently, the art-based rejections of claims 1-2 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) apropos the newly-added limitations in claim 1.
Applicant addresses the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) and the objection to the drawings, all more-or-less centered around the inability of the Examiner to find “wire packets” in the specification as filed. Applicant has amended the language around “wire packets” in claim 1 to give them better meaning and firmly establish them as the things shown in fig. 4 inside the slots. However, Applicant notes that the support for the newly added limitation (wherein each wire packet comprises two coil sides of a double-layer winding in one stator…) can be found in figs. 4A/B. The Examiner notes that there are no figs. 4A/4B among the drawing sheets of the instant application. The Examiner suspects that this reference could be to figures 4A-4B of U.S. Patent Application 18/835,732, also owned by Applicant, which has a figure 4A and a figure 4B, wherein both of these figures show double-layer packets and would probably support claim 1’s new limitations if they were part of this application. However, as the other application was filed after the filing date of the present application, there is no way to bring its figs. 4A-4B into the present application, unless Applicant can find them in priority documents or otherwise show the Office how there are figures like these that can support the claim of this application.
Concerning formal matters, Applicant asserts that the amendments to the specification and claims overcome and/or render moot the drawing objection, claim objection, specification objections, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). The Examiner concurs and thanks the Applicant for such a detailed cleanup of the application. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) and a new drawing objection have been made, see below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the two coil sides of a double-layer winding must be shown or the features canceled from claim 1. The drawings were originally objected-to for omitting the wire packets. Due to the newly added limitation (the text in bold-type above and the rest of its respective clause), the Examiner understands that the wire packets, per se, are apparently the things in the slots, in a general sense – enough that he will allow the term “wire packets” to be used in the claim, although he still does not believe a reader of ordinary skill in the art would know what is the boundary between what is covered by the term or not (specifically, how a person could count them up to see if they sum to the total required by the equations in claim 1), particularly in light of the discrepancy between the arguments, drawings, and the extant evidence for them in ¶ 0037 of the written description (see below and above). However, the drawings (i.e. fig. 4, where they would be expected to be) do not depict a double-layer winding, nor do they show two coil sides of a winding or double-layer structure.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Line 9 of the claim recites “each wire packet comprises two coil sides of a double-layer winding in one stator slot”. This limitation has two elements that are not supported by the specification as originally filed.
The double-layer feature is not in the specification at all. It is not shown in the drawings. It would be best found in fig. 4 (see Response to Arguments above) but each slot in fig. 4 only has one object in it and the cross-hatch pattern indicates that each of these is are meant to be a unitary object. ¶ 0037 introduces the wire packets but does not mention double layers. The words “double” and “layer” are not recited in the written description. This feature is apparently wholly unsupported by the specification as filed.
The coil sides feature is also not is not adequately supported. Like the double-layer feature, it cannot be found in the drawings. The Examiner did locate, in ¶ 0037, support for “two component sides”, but this is apparently referring to the wire packets and/or phase windings, so it is difficult for a reader to establish, and therefore it cannot be definitively established, that the language of ¶ 0037 (or any other part of the written description) adds up to “coil sides”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Line 10 of the claim establishes that the (total) number of wire packets equals Z.
Line 11 of the claim establishes “k” as the number of wire packets.
Line 19 of the claim establishes Z = 2 x m x k.
The resulting arithmetic is Z = 2 x m x Z, which is not mathematically permissible.
Therefore – and this is exacerbated by the fact that it is very difficult, if possible at all, to figure out what the wire packets are in such a way that they can be quantified, provided the extant figures and text of the specification – one of these limitations in claim 1 was inherently not in the possession of Applicant upon original filing, even though the Examiner cannot figure out which one it is. This same limitation would disallow a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the claimed invention
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 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of the wire packets" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis was provided for a “total number” of the wire packets in line 10. The limitation should be amended to indicate that the “number” is the previously-recited “total number” or if the “number” is meant to be something else, that something else should be inserted before line 11, in context (i.e. with the wire packets or something else), such that when “the number” (or preferably with a modifier distinguishing it from the “total number”) is recited in line 11, a reader can understand what is being referred to and be able to quantify its corresponding structures in a prior-art or potentially-infringing device. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret “the number” to be “the total number”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. An updated/extended search yielded a new reference that has been added to PTO Form 892, but this reference does not materially affect the prosecution.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
Prosecution Insights