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, see pages 8-9, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takai (EP1193829).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification needs to describe a first panel disposed perpendicular to the connecting segment and a second panel that extends from the first panel in a direction that extends away from the second flange.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP2016185034) in view of Takai (EP1193829).
As to independent claim 1, Kaneda teaches an electrically driven single-axle or multi-axle bus or truck (electric vehicle, see paragraph [0002)]) comprising: a dynamo-electric machine (10), wherein at least one axle can be driven by the dynamo-electric machine (10), wherein the dynamo-electric machine (10) has a stator (30), which is located in a housing (31) and has a winding system (35) arranged in slots located in a region of an air gap, wherein the winding system (35) is of polyphase design and forms end windings (see annotated figure 2) at the end faces of the stator (30), wherein the conductors of the electrical phases (52. 53. 54) are arranged axially directly on the end windings (see annotated figure 2), and wherein a conductor of a star-point (80) of this polyphase the winding system (35) is provided radially above the end windings (see annotated figure 2) between the end winding (see annotated figure 2) and the housing (31), wherein the winding system (35) is composed of tooth-wound coils or chorded coils and the end windings (see annotated figure 2) are each provided with a winding cap (34a), wherein the winding cap (34a) has means for guides electrical conductors of the winding system (35) and/or phase wires (52, 53, 54) and/or star- point wires (80) as shown in figures 1,2,7 and 9-14 and see paragraph [0067-0068], and [0086-0089].
PNG
media_image1.png
414
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Kaneda teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except the winding cap comprises an opening that guides a coil output to the conductor or the star- point that runs radially above the end winding.
Takai teaches the winding cap (13) comprises an opening (13d) that guides a coil output to the conductor (12) or the star- point that runs radially above the end winding as shown in figures 2, 4 and 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda by using the winding cap comprises an opening that guides a coil output to the conductor or the star- point that runs radially above the end winding, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to independent claim 6, Kaneda teaches a dynamo-electric machine (10), comprising: a housing (31), a stator (30) located in a housing (31), the stator (30) comprising a winding system (35) arranged in slots located in a region of an air gap, wherein the winding system (35) is of polyphase design and forms end windings (see annotated figure 2) at the end faces of the stator (30), wherein the conductors of the electrical phases (52. 53. 54) are arranged axially directly on the end windings (see annotated figure 2), and wherein a conductor of a star-point (80) of the winding system (35) is provided radially above the end windings (see annotated figure 2) between the end winding (see annotated figure 2) and the housing (31), wherein the winding system (35) is composed of tooth-wound coils or chorded coils and the end windings (see annotated figure 2) are each provided with a winding cap (34a), wherein the winding cap (34a) guides electrical conductors of the winding system (35) and/or phase wires (52, 53, 54) and/or star- point wires (80) as shown in figures 1,2,7 and 9-14 and see paragraph [0067-0068], and [0086-0089].
However Kaneda teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except the winding cap comprises an opening that guides a coil output to the conductor or the star- point that runs radially above the end winding.
Takai teaches the winding cap (13) comprises an opening (13d) that guides a coil output to the conductor (12) or the star- point that runs radially above the end winding as shown in figures 2, 4 and 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda by using the winding cap comprises an opening that guides a coil output to the conductor or the star- point that runs radially above the end winding, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to claim 10/6, Kaneda teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein each winding cap comprises a first flange and wherein the opening is in the first flange.
However Takai teaches each winding cap (13) comprises a first flange (13b) and wherein the opening (13d) is in the first flange (13b) as shown in figures 4 and 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using each winding cap comprises a first flange and wherein the opening is in the first flange, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to claim 11/10, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the opening is an open-sided slot that extends from a first side of the first flange that faces toward the conductors of the electrical phases.
However Takai teaches the opening (13d) is an open-sided slot that extends from a first side of the first flange (13b) that faces toward the conductors of the electrical phases as shown in figures 4 and 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using the opening is an open-sided slot that extends from a first side of the first flange that faces toward the conductors of the electrical phases, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to claim 12/10, Kaneda teaches wherein each winding cap (34) comprises a second flange (40) opposite the first flange (39), and wherein the tooth-wound coils or chorded coils of the winding system extend from the first flange (39) to the second flange (40) as shown in figures 2 and 5.
As to claim 15/11, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the first flange comprises a recess that is spaced apart from the opening and extends from the first side of the first flange.
However Takai teaches the first flange (13b) comprises a recess (see annotated figure 5) that is spaced apart from the opening (13d) and extends from the first side of the first flange (1b) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using the first flange comprises a recess that is spaced apart from the opening and extends from the first side of the first flange, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to claim 16/15, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the opening extends farther from the first side than the recess extends from the first side.
However Takai teaches the opening (13d) extends farther from the first side than the recess (see annotated figure 5) extends from the first side as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using the opening extends farther from the first side than the recess extends from the first side, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to claim 17/15, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the first flange comprises a cutout positioned opposite the recess of the first flange.
However Takai teaches the first flange 13b) comprises a cutout (see annotated figure 5, inherent to extend to 13b) the positioned opposite the recess (see annotated figure 5) of the first flange (13b) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using the first flange comprises a cutout positioned opposite the recess of the first flange, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
As to claim 18/15, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein each winding cap comprises a second flange opposite the first flange, and wherein the second flange comprises a second recess that is aligned with the recess of the first flange.
However Takai teaches each winding cap (13) comprises a second flange (13c) opposite the first flange (13b), and wherein the second flange (13b) comprises a second recess (13e) that is aligned with the recess (see annotated figure 5) of the first flange (13b) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using a second flange opposite the first flange, and wherein the second flange comprises a second recess that is aligned with the recess of the first flange, as taught by Takai, to reduce the stator thickness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP2016185034) and Takai (EP1193829) as applied in claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US PG Pub 2010/033039).
As to claims 2/1 and 7/6, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the housing of the dynamo-electric machine has a cooling system.
However Sakai et al. teaches the housing (11) of the dynamo-electric machine (1) has a cooling system as shown in figures 1A, 1B, for the advantageous benefit of providing an electric motor which can increase rigidity thereof and cooling efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using the housing of the dynamo-electric machine has a cooling system, as taught by Sakai et al., to provide a polyphase rotary machine comprising an architecture of this type of interconnected power modules.
As to claims 3/2 and 8/7, Kaneda and Takai in view of Sakai et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the housing has axially extending ribs.
However Sakai et al. teaches wherein the housing (11) has axially extending ribs (13a) as shown in figure 1A, for the advantageous benefit of providing an electric motor which can increase rigidity thereof and cooling efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda and Takai in view of Sakai et al. by using the housing has axially extending ribs, as taught by Sakai et al., to provide a polyphase rotary machine comprising an architecture of this type of interconnected power modules.
As to claim 4/3, Kaneda and Takai in view of Sakai et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the housing is designed as a cooling jacket.
However Sakai et al. teaches wherein the housing (11) is designed as a cooling jacket (see paragraph [0022]), for the advantageous benefit of providing an electric motor which can increase rigidity thereof and cooling efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda and Takai in view of Sakai et al. by using the housing is designed as a cooling jacket, as taught by Sakai et al., to provide a polyphase rotary machine comprising an architecture of this type of interconnected power modules.
As to claim 5/2, Kaneda and Takai in view of Sakai et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the housing (11) is designed as a cooling jacket (see paragraph [0022]), for the advantageous benefit of providing an electric motor which can increase rigidity thereof and cooling efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda and Takai in view of Sakai et al. by using the housing is designed as a cooling jacket, as taught by Sakai et al., to provide a polyphase rotary machine comprising an architecture of this type of interconnected power modules.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP2016185034) and Takai (EP1193829) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Bolz (US PG Pub 2017/0317547).
As to claim 9/6, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein each winding cap is disposed farther from the housing than the conductor of the star-point of the winding system is disposed from the housing.
However Bolz teaches winding cap (26) is disposed farther from the housing (see paragraph [0034], which is inherent farther from the housing, see annotated figure 1a) than the conductor (18) of the star-point of the winding system is disposed from the housing (see annotated figure 1a) as shown in figure 1a, for the advantageous benefit of leading to a robust and installation-space-saving embodiment of the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
458
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai. by using winding cap is disposed farther from the housing than the conductor of the star-point of the winding system is disposed from the housing, as taught by Bolz, to lead to a robust and installation-space-saving embodiment of the device.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP2016185034) and Takai (EP1193829) as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Kloepzig (WO2012175476).
As to claim 13/12, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the winding cap comprises ribbing arranged between the first flange and the second flange.
However Kloepzig teaches the winding cap comprises ribbing (36) arranged between the first flange (33) and the second flange (23) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of ensuring a good thermal contact of the tooth coil winding to the stator and reduces the risk of injury to the winding insulation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai by using the winding cap comprises ribbing arranged between the first flange and the second flange, as taught by Kloepzig, to ensure a good thermal contact of the tooth coil winding to the stator and reduces the risk of injury to the winding insulation.
As to claim 14/13, Kaneda and Takai in view of Kloepzig teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the ribbing extends from the first flange to the second flange.
However Kloepzig teaches the ribbing (36) extends from the first flange (33) to the second flange (23) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of ensuring a good thermal contact of the tooth coil winding to the stator and reduces the risk of injury to the winding insulation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda and Takai in view of Kloepzig by using the ribbing extends from the first flange to the second flange, as taught by Kloepzig, to ensure a good thermal contact of the tooth coil winding to the stator and reduces the risk of injury to the winding insulation.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP2016185034) and Takai (EP1193829) as applied in claim 18 above, and further in view of Takai (EP1193829) and Bolz (US PG Pub2017/0317547).
As to claim 19/18, Kaneda in view of Takai teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the opening extends farther from the first side than the recess extends from the first side, the first flange comprises a cutout disposed opposite the recess, and each winding cap is disposed farther from the housing than the conductor of a star-point of the winding system is disposed from the housing.
However Takai teaches the opening (13d) extends farther from the first side than the recess (see annotated figure 5) extends from the first side, the first flange (13b) comprises a cutout (see annotated figure 5) disposed opposite the recess (see annotated figure 5) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the stator thickness.
Bolz teaches winding cap (26) is disposed farther from the housing (see paragraph [0034], see annotated figure 1a) than the conductor (18) of a star-point of the winding system is disposed from the housing (see paragraph [0034] and see annotated figure 1a) as shown in figure 1a, for the advantageous benefit of leading to a robust and installation-space-saving embodiment of the device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kaneda in view of Takai. by using the opening extends farther from the first side than the recess extends from the first side, the first flange comprises a cutout disposed opposite the recess, and winding cap is disposed farther from the housing than the conductor of the star-point of the winding system is disposed from the housing, as taught by Takai and Bolz, to reduce the stator thickness and lead to a robust and installation-space-saving embodiment of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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, OLUSEYE 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 February 27, 2026