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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 09 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “distance space” and “groove base gap”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference to specific claims (p.2) should be removed, as the claim numbered can change during prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, “the tooth length direction” lacks antecedent basis.
In claims 4 & 14, “the groove opening” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 11, “a distance space” is not idiomatic and “uninsulated surfaces of the tooth core” and “the groove base gap” lack antecedent basis and the claimed structure is indefinite.
In claim 12, “the wires of the coil have a degree of deformation which increases with decreasing radius…in a coil layer which is outer in the tooth width direction” is indefinite and lacks clear basis---to the degree to which a comparison with the art is not possible.
In claim 13, “…on the side to the groove base…” and in claim 14, “…on the side to the groove opening…” are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 6-7 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroshi et al. (JP 2009-225518).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroshi teaches a method for compacting coil turns 113 which are wound on a tooth core 11 of a stator segment 11, wherein an insulation layer (bobbin) 112 is arranged between coil turns and the tooth core, and the tooth core in a tooth height direction between a yoke region and a tooth head has a tooth core neck and in a tooth width direction between the yoke region and the tooth head has groove halves running in a tooth length direction, in which groove halves the coil turns 113 are disposed (Fig.4), characterized in that
the coil turns are compressed in the tooth width direction and in the tooth length direction by at least four pressing jaws (i.e., respective pressing jigs 2&3; English machine translation p.4; Fig.6).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
306
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, for the compression of the coil turns in the tooth width direction, the coil turns are compressed in the tooth width direction by coil contour jaws to the tooth core neck in particular on both sides at the same time “and in each case in a distance-controlled and force-monitored manner” [sic] (i.e., the coil portion located on the long side of bobbin is pressed using the pressing jigs 2, 2 on both sides; Fig.8).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroshi teaches a device for compacting coil turns 113 disposed in groove halves of a tooth core 11, wherein the groove halves lie between a yoke region and a tooth head of the tooth core, and a tooth core neck with an insulation layer (bobbin) 112 for insulating the groove bottom of the groove halves is formed between the yoke region and the tooth head, characterized in that the device for compressing the coil turns 113 has coil contour jaws 2 movable in a tooth width direction and coil head jaws 3 movable in a tooth length direction (Figs.4&6).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Hiroshi teaches a stator segment wherein “a distance space between uninsulated surfaces of the tooth core [111] in the groove base gap and/or at the edge of the pole surface of the tooth head with respect to a coil wound around the tooth core” [sic] (i.e., periphery of core without bobbin insulation; Fig.4).
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.
Claims 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi as applied to claims 1 & 7, respectively, further in view of Hill (DE 10 2014 213595).
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach compressing of the coil turns in the tooth length direction (by pressing jig) 3 occurs at least partially before compressing of the coil turns in the tooth width direction (by pressing jig) 2 (claim 2) or that “separately movable groove base jaws are present on the coil contour jaws in the tooth width direction” (claim 8).
But, regarding claim 2, Hill teaches a method and apparatus for manufacturing a divided stator core segments 11 including winding the segments and compacting them in all three spatial directions. The segments are radially and axially clamped, but the order can change (¶[0091]-¶[0092]); Figs.14-15). Further, regarding claim 8, Hill teaches separately movable groove base jaws 86 are present on the coil contour jaws 85 in the tooth width direction, so that the pressing force at the tooth neck and at the tangential contact surfaces in the yoke region can be adjusted differently (¶[0094]; Fig.16).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to compress the coil turns of Hiroshi in the tooth length direction at least partially before the compression of the coil turns in the tooth width direction since Hill teaches that the order of compression was known in the art to be changeable, and further to provide separately movable groove base jaws on the coil contour jaws of Hiroshi in the tooth width direction since Hill teaches they would have enabled the pressing force to be adjusted differently.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi as applied to claim 11, further in view of Oohashi et al. (JP 2008278655)
Hiroshi does not further teach that “at least one coil turn in the region of the groove halves on the side to the groove base [sic] has a flattened portion, the surface normal of which also has a component in the tooth height direction in addition to a component in the tooth width direction” (claim 13) or “at least one coil turn in the region of the groove opening on the side to the groove opening [sic] has a flattened portion, the surface normal of which also has a component in the tooth height direction in addition to a component in the tooth width direction” (claim 14).
But, Oohashi teaches a split stator including core teeth 101 and a winding 202 wound thereon, wherein at least one coil turn in the region of the groove halves on the side of the groove base and groove opening (i.e., across entire length of groove) has a flattened portion (e.g., one side of polygonal cross-section), the surface normal of which also has a component in the tooth height direction in addition to a component in the tooth width direction (Figs.1-2). The polygonal cross section windings minimizes the gap between the windings and reduces the space factor (English machine translation p.4).
PNG
media_image3.png
222
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi as applied to claim 11, further in view of Podack et al. (DE 10 2008 010231)
Hiroshi does not teach the maximum distance of the coil outer surface from a line of symmetry in the tooth center in the tooth width direction is nominally the same on both sides of the tooth core neck.
But, Podack teaches a method for compacting coil turns 3 which are wound on a tooth core 1 of a stator segment wherein the maximum distance of the coil outer surface from a line of symmetry in the tooth center in the tooth width direction is nominally the same on both sides of the tooth core neck when pressed by pressing tool 7 in the direction A, to reduce free spaces between the wires 3 and increased the groove fill factor (¶[0027]-¶[0029]; ¶[0036]; Figs.2-3).
PNG
media_image4.png
331
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
321
442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 & 9-10 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.
The prior art of record does not appear to further teach the claimed method including, inter alia, clamping the tooth core in the tooth height direction before compressing of the coil turns, wherein the yoke region is inserted in a holding bracket, and is clamped via the pole surface on the tooth head in the tooth height direction by a holding and compacting device (claim 3); or
“…before the coil turns are compressed in the tooth width direction, a groove opening jaw of the holding and compacting device compresses the coil turns lying in the region of the groove opening from the pole surface in the tooth height direction” (claim 4), or
“…before compressing of the coil turns in the tooth width direction, groove base jaws are inserted in relation to the tooth height direction between at least one coil turn and the yoke region of the tooth core in the tooth width direction” (claim 5), or
“wherein the device for clamping the tooth core has a holding bracket for receiving the yoke region of the tooth core and the device further has a holding and compacting device movable in the tooth height direction, whereby the tooth core on the pole surface is clamped against the holding bracket by means of a holding jaw mounted in the holding and compacting device with a spring” (claim 9); or
“the holding and compacting device is configured to grip the pole surface with a groove opening jaw movable in the tooth height direction and to at least partially compress the coil turns in the groove halves in the tooth height direction” (claim 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights