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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 07/01/2024, 07/21/2025 and 01/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 9,10,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iitaka et al. (JP 2012019573)
Regarding claim 9, Iitaka et al. discloses:
A stator (10) comprising:
N continuous coils for a same phase (para 20),
the N continuous coils having X conductive wires and being connected to each other by a jumper wire (para 21),
the N continuous coils being arrayed (paras 20-21); and
a stator core (11) having core slots into which the N continuous coils are inserted (Figs 2-3),
wherein between the N coils, units each composed of X/N conductive wires are mutually interchanged in terms of an arrangement order in one direction of the conductive wires and are not mutually interchanged in terms of an arrangement order in another direction orthogonal to the one direction (paras 37, 50, Figs 11-13).
Iitaka et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, but in different embodiments.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of combining the teachings of Iitaka et al. to make applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above, since it would prevent a decrease in the space factor while preventing winding thickening and damage to bundled wires, even when displacement is performed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Iitaka et al. to make applicant’s currently claimed invention.
The motivation to do so is it would prevent a decrease in the space factor while preventing winding thickening and damage to bundled wires, even when displacement is performed (para 6 of Iitaka et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Iitaka et al. discloses:
A stator (10) comprising: a plurality of continuous coils for a same phase (paras 19-20), the plurality of continuous coils being connected to each other by a jumper wire (para 20), the plurality of continuous coils being arrayed (para 20, Figs 11-13); and
a stator core (11) having core slots (Figs 11-13) into which the plurality of continuous coils are inserted,
wherein insertion into the core slots is performed with the jumper wire being inverted between the plurality of continuous coils for the same phase, and
two of the coils that are connected to each other by the corresponding jumper wire have a same winding direction (paras 19-21, 50, Figs 11-13).
Iitaka et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, but in different embodiments.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of combining the teachings of Iitaka et al. to make applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above, since it would prevent a decrease in the space factor while preventing winding thickening and damage to bundled wires, even when displacement is performed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Iitaka et al. to make applicant’s currently claimed invention.
The motivation to do so is it would prevent a decrease in the space factor while preventing winding thickening and damage to bundled wires, even when displacement is performed (para 6 of Iitaka et al.).
Regarding claim 13/9, Iitaka et al. discloses rotating electrical machine comprising: the stator according to claim 9; and a rotor mounted to the stator (para 53).
Regarding claim 14/10, Iitaka et al. discloses a rotating electrical machine comprising: the stator according to claim 10; and a rotor mounted to the stator (para 53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 1, Iitaka et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a stator coil, in which a plurality of conductive wires are wound on reels so as to form coils and the formed coils are inserted into core slots of a stator core, the method comprising: a winding step of arraying the plurality of conductive wires in one row and winding, while maintaining an arrayed state, each of the conductive wires a predetermined number of times on each of a plurality of the reels having different diameters, to form a plurality of coils connected to each other by a jumper wire (paras 18022,50, Figs 11-13).
However, neither Iitaka et al. nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “a gripping step of detaching each of the plurality of coils from the corresponding reel while maintaining the arrayed state of the plurality of conductive wires; and an insertion step of disposing, in the stator core, the plurality of gripped coils so as to stack the coils in an order of insertion into the core slots, and then inserting the coils into the core slots.”.
Claims 2-8 are allowable based on their virtue of depending on claim 1.
Claims 12 and 15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 12/10 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the continuous coils for the same phase include a coil on one side of the jumper wire inverted between the continuous coils and a coil on another side of said jumper wire, and a winding end of the coil on the one side and a winding start of the coil on the other side are present on a same side in a radial direction inside the corresponding core slots.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 15/12 is also allowable for depending on claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834