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
Figure 1 (a-f) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 5 (see paragraph 24)
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. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (first sentence), and it exceeds 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The examiner recommends omitting the first sentence of the abstract to address both issues.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “any of the slot” in line 16, which is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 12 analogously recites “any of the slot”.
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 8-12 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 8 recites “said slot” (singular) in line 3, whereas “at least one” slot was previously established. It is therefore unclear in which of potentially plural slots the bundle is bonded. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as reciting --each slot--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the exposed parts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "both ends" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the upper surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the biasing force of the press rod is applied to the stator on the table, whereby the stay is raised to a position where the supporting portion is in contact with the lower surface of the stator core on the table”, which reads as a method step despite the claim reciting an apparatus. The scope is thus unclear, but will be treated as reciting the intended use of the apparatus.
Claim 12 recites “said slot” (singular) in line 4, whereas “at least one” slot was previously established. It is therefore unclear in which of potentially plural slots the bundle is bonded. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as reciting --each slot--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the exposed parts" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "both ends" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the upper part" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missman (U.S. Patent 5,001,828) in view of Dombrowski et al. (U.S. Patent 3,948,124).
Claim 8: Missman discloses a conductor bundle separation device (10) for separating a conductor bundle (17) from a stator (15), the stator including a stator core having a central hole (14) and at least one slot (16) therearound, and a conductor bundle (17) bonded in said slot, the exposed parts of said conductor bundle being cut and removed from both ends of the stator core (column 3, lines 35-39), said conductor bundle separation device comprising: a press unit (20) comprising: a stay (40), a press actuator (22) on an upper part of the stay, an abutment (80) on a lower part of the stay having a hollow portion (slot 81) through which the conductor bundle can pass (column 3, lines 26-30) and a supporting portion (e.g. upper surface of foot 80) around the hollow portion, a press rod (25) which is driven up and down on an axis by the press actuator (e.g. column 3, lines 57-63), wherein any of the [slots are] aligned with the axis and by lowering the press rod by the press actuator, the press rod penetrates into the slot in a state in which the lower surface of the stator core is supported by the supporting portion and the conductor bundle is pushed out from the slot (column 3, lines 44-63).
Regarding the above, it is further noted that while Missman generally discloses the details of the stator core as claimed, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Therefore, the structural details of the stator and the conductor bundle thereof do not necessarily limit the separation device per se.
Missman does not disclose a rotary device which rotates the stator intermittently to process each slot. However, Dombrowski teaches a stator conductor bundle processing device having a rotary device which rotates the stator intermittently (indexing) to process different circumferential portions thereof (column 7, line 66 - column 8, line 3; column 10, lines 23-44). To the extent that the stator of Missman comprises a number of slots about its circumference and the press rod processes only one, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly provided a rotary device in order to have automatically repositioned the stator for processing subsequent portions thereof.
Claim 9: Missman further comprises a table (12) having an opening through which the abutment fixed to a device body (e.g. 2) can pass (see Figs. 2-3), a linear guide (3) for guiding the stay fixed to the device body up and down, and a balance spring biasing the stay upwardly (column 2, lines 47-50), wherein the stay is supported such that the upper surface of the abutment is positioned below the table (below the upper surface thereof, see Figs. 2-3) by balancing between the weight of the press unit and the biasing force of the balance spring implied from the biased support by the spring), and wherein the biasing force of the press rod is applied to the stator on the table (column 3, lines 44-63), whereby the stay is raised to a position where the supporting portion is in contact with the lower surface of the stator core on the table (Id.; Figs. 2-3).
Claim 12: Missman discloses a conductor bundle separation method for separating a conductor bundle (17) from a stator (15) using a conductor bundle separation device (10), the stator including a stator core having a central hole (14) and at least one slot (16) therearound and a conductor bundle (17) bonded in said slot, the exposed parts of said conductor bundle being cut and removed from both ends of the stator core (column 3, lines 35-39); the conductor bundle separation device comprising: a press unit (20), the press unit comprising: a stay (40), a press actuator (22) on the upper part of the stay, an abutment (80) on a lower part of the stay having a hollow portion (slot 81) through which the conductor bundle can pass (column 3, lines 26-30) and a supporting portion (e.g. upper surface of foot 80) around the hollow portion, a press rod (25) which is driven up and down on an axis by the press actuator (e.g. column 3, lines 57-63), wherein any of the [slots are] aligned with the axis and by lowering the press rod by the press actuator, the press rod penetrates into the slot in a state in which the lower surface of the stator core is supported by the supporting portion and the conductor bundle is pushed out from the slot (column 3, lines 44-63).
Missman does not disclose a rotary device which rotates the stator intermittently to process each slot. However, Dombrowski teaches a stator conductor bundle processing device having a rotary device which rotates the stator intermittently (indexing) to process different circumferential portions thereof (column 7, line 66 - column 8, line 3; column 10, lines 23-44). To the extent that the stator of Missman comprises a number of slots about its circumference and the press rod processes only one, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly provided a rotary device in order to have automatically repositioned the stator for processing subsequent portions thereof.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missman and Dombrowski et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Enoki et al. (JP2012055037, cited in IDS).
Claim 10: Referring to Missman, the rotary device comprises: a chuck unit (60) comprising: a chuck housing (the general body thereof) having an outer shape capable of passing through the central hole (column 3, lines 12-17; Figs. 2-3), a chuck claw (wedge 61) slidable in a radial direction at an angular position of the chuck housing (Id.), and a linear actuator (hoist 1) that moves the chuck unit up and down between three height positions of: an origin height at which an upper end (this could be any end arbitrarily designated as such, noting that “upper” is relative) of the chuck housing is disposed below the table (Fig. 3); a first operating height at which the chuck claws can be engaged with the central hole of the stator placed on the table; and a second operating height above said first operating height (the device would at least be capable of achieving three distinct heights as claimed).
Missman does not disclose a plurality of chuck claws slidable in a radial direction at different angular positions of the chuck housing. However, Enoki teaches a conductor bundle separation device wherein the chuck housing (11) comprises a plurality of chuck claws (11a) slidable in a radial direction at different angular positions of the chuck housing (paragraph 15 and 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of chuck claws as taught by Enoki et al. in order to have provided a more even distribution of clamping forces, for example.
Missman does not disclose a rotary actuator for intermittently rotating the chuck housing. However, as discussed above for claim 8, Dombrowski teaches a stator conductor bundle processing device having a rotary device which rotates the stator holding means intermittently (indexing) to process different circumferential portions thereof (column 7, line 66 - column 8, line 3; column 10, lines 23-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly provided a rotary device in order to have automatically repositioned the stator for processing subsequent portions thereof.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missman and Dombrowski et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Qian et al. (CN105537913).
Missman and Dombrowski et al. teach a device substantially as claimed except for wherein the press unit further comprises a guide member having a guide bore formed on the axis for guiding the press rod, the press rod has a distal end portion and a proximal end portion having a cross-sectional shape having a larger second moment of area than the distal end portion, and the guide bore has a cross-sectional shape through which both the distal end portion and the proximal end portion can pass. However, Qian et al. teaches a motor stator wire pressing device wherein the press unit further comprises a guide member (12) having a guide channel (14) formed on the axis for guiding the press rod, the press rod has a distal end portion (4) and a proximal end portion (3) having a cross-sectional shape having a larger second moment of area than the distal end portion (wider than the tapered end 4, see Fig. 2 and paragraph 23), and the guide channel has a cross-sectional shape through which both the distal end portion and the proximal end portion can pass (the channel accommodates the widest portion to the press rod and thus could accommodate all of it). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have structured the press rod and provided a guide channel as taught by Qian et al. in order to have better supported the press rod during pressing.
The channel 14 is not necessarily a “bore” in the sense of a fully closed opening. However, the difference between the channel 14 and a “bore” essentially amounts to differences in shape, where it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 63, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific shape of the bore.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 2723443 discloses an electric motor stator stripping machine using a cutting mechanism and a claw to cut and lift stator conductor bundles from stators.
U.S. PGPub 2014/0000094 discloses a method and apparatus for removing a conductor bundle from a stator wherein the pressing devices rotates within the stator rather than the stator being rotated. The press rod (600) comprises a wedge having a distal (lower) end portion and a proximal (upper) end portion having a cross-sectional shape having a larger second moment of area than the distal end portion.
DE3635115 also uses a claw to lift wires from a stator.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights