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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a unique point of contact” of claim 1
“an elastic deformation” of claim 2
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 13-16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 16, “each of the teeth surrounded by coils” should be changed to “each of the teeth surrounded by the coils”
Claims 4, 18, “at least three teeth surrounded by coils” should be changed to “at least three teeth surrounded by the coils”
Claim 11, “at least one of the teeth and its corresponding receiving region” should be changed to “at least one of the teeth and the corresponding receiving region”
Claims 13, 14, 15, “The motor of claim 1” should be changed to “The machine of claim 1”
Claim 15, “three teeth configured for receiving coils” should be changed to “three teeth configured for receiving the coils”
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 2, 4, and 18-20 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 recitation of “the overlapping area being able to be absorbed by an elastic deformation” is indefinite because it is unclear how one of the claimed stator parts is able to absorb the other claimed stator part. Also, the elastic deformation is unclear because of the uncommon use of the term absorb and figures 2, 4, and 5 showing a receiving region (211) which appears to be the claimed elastic deformation.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “absorbed” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “a point of engagement,” while the accepted meaning is “to take in or suck up like a sponge.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
For examining purposes the Examiner is interpreting “absorbed” as meaning the point of engagement and “elastic deformation” as meaning the receiving end of stator part 2.
Dependent claims 18-20 are rejected, as they inherit the deficiency of the independent claim.
Claim 4 recitation of “the stator has at least three teeth surrounded by coils” is indefinite because claim 1 recites a stator comprising two stator parts connected by a plurality of teeth. Claim 4 introduces three additional teeth to the teeth already introduced in claim 1. It is unclear if claim 4 is simply narrowing the plurality of teeth to a minimum of three teeth. Are the at least three teeth of claim 4 the same teeth introduced in claim 1?
For examining purposes the Examiner is interpreting the at least three teeth of claim 4 as the same plurality of teeth introduced in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the constrained point of contact" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gillen (US 2,251,674).
Regarding claim 1, Gillen discloses a slotted, electric radial flux machine (see Figures 1-3) comprising
a stator (see Figure 1) having a stator axis and comprising two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) connected by a plurality of teeth (11 of Figure 1-3), some or all of which are surrounded by coils (15 of Figure 1-3), the two stator parts having a first pattern and a second pattern (see Figure 2, patterns are simply the stacking of the laminations in a direction parallel to the axis), respectively, in a plane perpendicular to the stator axis, wherein:
each of the teeth surrounded by coils is an extension of one of the first or second patterns and has a front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) engaging with a receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) of the other of the first or second patterns to form a unique point of contact that is constrained within the plane.
Regarding claim 2, Gillen discloses a slotted, electric radial flux machine (see Figures 1-3) comprising
a stator (see Figure 1) having a stator axis and comprising two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) connected by a plurality of teeth (11 of Figure 1-3), some or all of which are surrounded by coils (15 of Figure 1-3), the two stator parts having a first pattern and a second pattern (see Figure 2, patterns are simply the stacking of the laminations in a direction parallel to the axis), respectively, in a plane perpendicular to the stator axis,
each of the teeth surrounded by coils being an extension of one of the first or second patterns and having a front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) engaging with a receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) of the other of the first or second patterns, wherein:
the first and second patterns have at least one overlapping area at a point of engagement between the front end and the receiving region (see Figures 1, 3), the overlapping area being able to be absorbed by an elastic deformation, greater than manufacturing tolerances, of at least one or the other of the two stator parts linked to movement of the front end.
Regarding claim 3, Gillen discloses wherein lines normal to contact surfaces between the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) and said corresponding receiving regions (14 of Figure 1, 3) pass through the unique points of contact, are not concurrent at a single point coinciding with the stator axis (see Figure 1, the contact region is round and therefore has a plurality of normal which do not cross).
Regarding claims 4, 18, Gillen discloses wherein the stator (see Figure 1) has at least three teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) surrounded by coils (15 of Figure 1-3), each of the at least three teeth producing a constrained point of contact (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 6, 20, Gillen discloses wherein all of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) consist of extensions of only one of the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Gillen discloses wherein the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) consist partly of extensions of one of the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) and partly of extensions of the other of the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gillen discloses wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) is convex, and wherein the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) is flat.
Regarding claim 11, Gillen discloses wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) and its corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) are convex (Page 1, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Gillen discloses wherein the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) consist of stacked laminations, one of the first or second patterns fitting into the other of the first or second patterns (see Figure 2, patterns are simply the stacking of the laminations in a direction parallel to the axis).
Regarding claim 14, Gillen discloses further comprising a rotor (5 of Figure 1) internal to the stator (see Figure 1).
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 5, 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen (US 2,251,674).
Regarding claims 5, 19, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein an extent of a region of the constrained point of contact is less than 5% of a periphery of the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of the tooth (11 of Figure 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the point of contact is less than 5% of a periphery of the front end of the tooth in the electrical machine of Gillen to confine the pole sections closely together to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together [Gillen: Page 1, lines 1-6] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) is convex, and wherein the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) is concave, with a greater radius of curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the point of contact at the receiving region have a greater radius of curvature in the electrical machine of Gillen to confine the pole sections closely together to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together [Gillen: Page 1, lines 1-6] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Gillen discloses wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) is concave (Page 1, lines 1-6), and wherein the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) is convex (Page 1, lines 1-6), with a smaller radius of curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the point of contact at the receiving region have a smaller radius of curvature in the electrical machine of Gillen to confine the pole sections closely together to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together [Gillen: Page 1, lines 1-6] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen (US 2,251,674), in view of Prudham (US 2012/0104905).
Regarding claim 13, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose further comprising a rotor (5 of Figure 1) external to the stator (see Figure 1).
Prudham discloses further comprising a rotor (202 of Figure 19) external to the stator (201 of Figure 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the rotor external to the stator of the electrical machine of Gillen, as taught by Prudham, since it was known in the art that outer rotor motors provide high torque and power density.
Regarding claim 15, Gillen discloses wherein the stator (see Figure 1) alternates between wide teeth and narrow teeth (11 of Figure 1-3; see Figures 1, 3), only three teeth configured for receiving coils (15 of Figure 1-3).
Gillen does not explicitly disclose being located in an angular sector α of angular extent less than 180ᵒ.
Prudham discloses teeth (31, 35, 36 of Figure 4; 11, 15, 16 of Figure 17) being located in an angular sector α of angular extent less than 180ᵒ.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the teeth configured for receiving coils in the electrical machine of Gillen be located in an angular sector α of angular extent less than 180ᵒ, as taught by Prudham, to allow for a more compact motor design and a higher torque-to-weight ratio since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen (US 2,251,674), in view of Biwersi (US 2016/0233734).
Regarding claim 16, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein a first stator part (10 of Figure 1) is overmolded with a plastic body forming a coil body on each of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) surrounded by coils (15 of Figure 1-3), the coil body axially extending the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of the teeth by a flared groove (claim 16);
wherein the flared grooves of the plastic body have sufficient rigidity to withstand the elastic deformation stresses of the first or second stator part (9, 10 of Figure 1) exerted during assembly by axial insertion of the first and second stator parts (claim 17).
Biwersi discloses wherein a first stator part (Para. 0040, stator) is overmolded with a plastic body forming a coil body (4 of Figure 1; Para. 0052) on each of the teeth surrounded by coils (5a, 5b, 5c of Figure 1), the coil body axially extending the front end of the teeth by a flared groove (Para. 0046) (claim 16);
wherein the flared grooves (Para. 0046) of the plastic body (Para. 0052) have sufficient rigidity to withstand the elastic deformation stresses of the first or second stator part (Para. 0040, stator) exerted during assembly by axial insertion of the first and second stator parts (claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the coil body of Gillen overmolded with a plastic body and grooves, as taught by Biwersi, to make implementation of the assembly easy, precise, and sure [Biwersi: Para. 0046].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hyppias (US 2015/0263572) discloses an electric motor with narrow teeth.
Tavernier (US 2020/0076254) discloses an electrical machine with the stator overmoulded with a plastic body forming a coil body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 PM.
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 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834