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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/28/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-4, 6, 11-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (WO 2021144900 A1) in view of Mizushima et al. (US 2017/0126106 A1).
RE claim 1, Shibata teaches a winding overhang machining method (Figs.1-5), comprising: cutting off corners of tip portions of conductors 19 to form welding surfaces which 19c are angled (ϴ1) with respect to axes (C2) (Fig.5B) of the respective conductors 19; exerting a pushing force on each of the conductors 19, which have been inserted through an iron core so as to protrude out of the iron core 16, to form a bend in a base portion (BP) (see annotated Fig.14) of the conductor 19 so that the welding surfaces 19c of two of the bent conductors 19 to be connected together become contiguous and form a welding line 19i; and connecting the two conductors 19 together by performing laser welding on the welding surfaces 19i (see translation pages 6, 13, 2nd ¶).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base portion (BP))]
PNG
media_image1.png
624
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shibata does not teach thinning the tip portions of the conductors into wedge shapes so that the tip portions of the two conductors have opposing beveled sections which are slanted in a same direction.
Mizushima teaches thinning the tip portions 7 of the conductors 4 into wedge shapes (Fig.4) so that the tip portions of the two conductors (5, 5’) have opposing beveled sections which are slanted in a same direction (see Figs.2, 4, 6). So it is possible to accurately position the pair of tapered portions at their correct positions. Further, it is possible to reduce an overall length of the segment coils and reduce manufacturing cost of the motor (¶ 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 Shibata by having thinning the tip portions of the conductors into wedge shapes so that the tip portions of the two conductors have opposing beveled sections which are slanted in a same direction, as taught by Mizushima, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the two conductors 19 to be connected together are bent so that their welding surfaces 19c are coplanar (Fig.19) and/or that the welding line is perpendicular to an axis (Z) of the iron core (Fig.19).
RE claim 3/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches before the conductors 19 are inserted through the iron core 16, the tip portion 19c1 (Fig.5B) of each one of the conductors 19 is subjected to a pre-processing step comprising thinning the tip portion of the conductor 19 on a side facing towards another one of the conductors 19 to be connected thereto, to form a connecting surface 19c1 (see translation pg. 6, 3rd ¶ for inclined surface 19c1, 19c2 are formed so that they can be easily inserted into the slot 20. In other word, the inclined surface is a pre-processing step before inserting into the slot).
RE claim 4/3, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the connecting surface 19c (19c1 or 19c2) extends in a direction forming an angle with an axis (Z) of the iron core 16 (Figs.4, 5).
RE claim 6/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the step of exerting the pushing force on each of the conductors 19, which have been inserted through the iron core 16 so as to protrude out of the iron core (Figs.13, 14), to form the bend in the base portion of the conductor comprises: exerting the pushing force (via pressing jig 102) on the tip portion of the conductor to form the bend in the base portion of the conductor 19 until a final shape is obtained (Figs.13, 14); or
exerting a pushing force on the base portion of the conductor to form an initial bend in the base portion of the conductor; and then exerting a pushing force on the tip portion of the conductor to additionally bend the conductor at the base portion until a final shape is obtained; or
exerting a pushing force on the base portion of the conductor to form an initial bend in the base portion of the conductor; and then successively exerting pushing forces on points on the conductor along a path leading from the base portion to the tip portion to additionally bend the conductor at the base portion until a final shape is obtained.
RE claim 11/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches during the formation of the bend in the base portion of each of the conductors 19, which have been axially inserted through the iron core 16 so as to protrude out of the iron core, by exerting the pushing force on the conductor 19, only the pushing force is exerted, in order to avoid a creation of a bend, which is curved in an opposite direction to the bend formed in the base portion, in a portion of the conductor protruding out of the iron core 16 (Figs.5-7 and 14 for insertion of conductor 19 does not create any bend. The conductor only bent after being inserted in the slot via molding jig 102).
RE claim 12/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches applied to an I-pin winding, wherein both axis end portions of conductors 19 in the I-pin winding are processed according to the winding overhang machining method (Figs.5, 14).
RE claim 13, Shibata teaches a winding overhang structure 18a (Fig.3), comprising two conductors 19 connected together, each of the conductors 19 inserted through an iron core 16 so as to protrude out of the iron core 16, each of the conductors 19 having a base portion where a bend is formed (Fig.5), each of the conductors comprising a tip portion 19c having a welding surface 19c formed by cutting off a corner of the conductor 19 before the conductor is inserted through the iron core 16, the welding surface 19c forming an angle (ϴ1) with an axis (C2) of the conductor, the welding surfaces 19c of the two conductors being contiguous with each other and forming a welding line 19i, the two conductors 19 connected together by performing laser welding on the welding surfaces 19c (see translation pages 6, 13, 2nd ¶).
Shibata does not teach the tip portions of the conductors are thinned into wedge shapes so that the tip portions of the two conductors have opposing beveled sections which are slanted in a same direction.
Mizushima teaches the tip portions of the conductors 4 are thinned into wedge shapes (Fig.4) so that the tip portions of the two conductors have opposing beveled sections which are slanted in a same direction (Figs.2, 4, 6). So it is possible to accurately position the pair of tapered portions at their correct positions. Further, it is possible to reduce an overall length of the segment coils and reduce manufacturing cost of the motor (¶ 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 Shibata by having the tip portions of the conductors are thinned into wedge shapes so that the tip portions of the two conductors have opposing beveled sections which are slanted in a same direction, as taught by Mizushima, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 14/13, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the tip portion 19c of each of the conductors 19 comprises a connecting surface 19i facing towards the other one of the conductors, wherein the connecting surfaces 19i of the two conductors 19 are fully contacted with each other (Figs.22, 23).
RE claim 15/14, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the connecting surface 19i and a body of each conductor 19 are located at different height in a direction (Y) in which the conductors 19 are connected to each other, wherein the connecting surface 19i is lower than the body of the conductor in the direction (Y) (see Fig.23).
RE claim 16/14, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the conductors 19 are flat wires 19 each defining a width direction (X direction) along a cross-sectional length thereof and a thickness direction (Y-direction) along a cross-sectional width thereof, wherein each of the conductors 19 is bent in the base portion in the width direction (X direction), and the connecting surfaces 19i are located in the thickness direction (Y-direction) of the flat wires 19 (Fig.23).
RE claim 17/13, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches a portion of each of the conductors 19 that protrudes out of the iron core 16 does not have a bend curved in an opposite direction to the bend in the base portion (BP) (see annotated Fig.14 above).
RE claim 18/13, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches applied to an I-pin winding comprising conductors 19, which are inserted through an iron core 16 so as to protrude out of the iron core 16 from opposite axial end portions (of core 16) thereof and each bent in the base portion (BP), wherein the conductors protruding from the opposite axial end portions are bent in opposite directions (Fig.19).
RE claim 19/13, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches a tip coating covering the tip portions of the conductors (insulating powder coating, see pg. 6, 2nd ¶), wherein the tip coating is an electrical insulator (insulating powder coating, see pg. 6, 2nd ¶).
RE claim 20/13, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches the connecting surfaces 19c extend in a direction forming an angle with an axis (Z) of the iron core 16; wherein each of the connecting surfaces 19c comprises a beveled section 19c1 (Fig.5B) and/or a curved section.
RE claim 22, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches a stator assembly 12, comprising an iron core 16 and a winding 19 disposed on the iron core, the winding comprising conductors 19 implemented in the winding overhang structure 18b according to claim 13 (Figs.1-3).
RE claim 23/22, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches at least two conductor sets (19P, 19R, 19T) and (19Q, 19S, 19U) each formed by the conductors arranged circumferentially around the iron core at a same radius (Fig.19), the conductor sets arranged at different radial distances from the iron core 16, all the conductors (19P, 19R, 19T) in each conductor set bent in a same direction, conductors in adjacent two of the conductor sets 19P, 19R, 19T) and (19Q, 19S, 19U) bent in opposite directions (Fig.19), the conductors in each conductor set connected to the conductors in an adjacent one of the conductor sets in pairs (Fig.19); wherein the conductors in different ones of conductor sets are aligned at same circumferential positions (Fig.19), wherein the conductors in each connected pair are spaced from each other by five of the circumferential positions (Fig.19).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Mizushima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofmann et al. (US 2022/0395923 A1).
RE claim 5/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata does not teach during the laser welding, more energy is applied around the middle of the welding line than around two ends thereof.
Hofmann suggests that higher energy during laser welding can be applied to portion of conductor ends when compare to other portion of conductor (¶ 180), doing so allow quantification in order to control the energy input depending on the situation, resulting in a melt volume that produces the required connection cross-section (¶ 199).
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 Shibata in view of Mizushima by having during the laser welding, more energy is applied around the middle of the welding line than around two ends thereof, as taught by Hofmann, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Mizushima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2015/0180319 A1).
RE claim 9/6, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata does not teach before the pushing force is exerted on the base portion of the conductor, providing an auxiliary stopper and bringing the auxiliary stopper into abutment with the base portion of the conductor in a radial direction of the conductor.
Kimura teaches before the pushing force is exerted on the base portion of the conductor 5, providing an auxiliary stopper 27 and bringing the auxiliary stopper into abutment with the base portion of the conductor 5 in a radial direction of the conductor 5 (Fig.6). This eases the placement of the proximal end support member at the support position, regardless of the shape of the conductor segment extending from each slot (¶ 17). This contributes to high productivity, with no increase in cost. A highly versatile stator manufacturing method can thus be provided (¶ 20).
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 Shibata in view of Mizushima by having the pushing force is exerted on the base portion of the conductor, providing an auxiliary stopper and bringing the auxiliary stopper into abutment with the base portion of the conductor in a radial direction of the conductor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Mizushima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (JP 2000164043 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 10/1, Shibata in view of Mizushima has been discussed above. Shibata further teaches after the two conductors are connected together by performing laser welding on the welding surfaces 19c (see translation pages 6, 13, 2nd ¶), forming a tip coating on the tip portions of the conductor using a coating process (powder coating, see pg. 6, 2nd ¶) or a low-pressure overmolding process, the tip coating covering the welding surfaces of the conductors (see page 6, 2nd ¶).
Shibata does not teach the tip coating also cover the backsides opposite to the connecting surface of the tip portion
Kato teaches the tip coating 120 also cover the backsides opposite to the connecting surface of the tip portion (see Figs.1-6 and translation page 3 for coating 120 formed to cover the joint 118 and its vicinity). For this reason, the region where the coating is formed after the joining can be reduced, and the labor of removing the coating before the joining and applying the coating after the joining can be reduced (see translation). Furthermore, the tip coating covered the backside further provide additional and a more complete insulation for the coil connection end.
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 Shibata in view of Mizushima by having the tip coating also cover the backsides opposite to the connecting surface of the tip portion, as taught by Kato, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights