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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 6/12/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that as shown in FIGS. 1(a)-(b) of Nakanishi (reproduced above), the sleeve part 12b and flange 12a are merely structural parts of an insulator 12 that covers a teeth part 11 and a yoke part 10a of a split core 10. Nakanishi does not teach or suggest a resin. portion having (i) a "first region which extends in a radial direction along a coil side surface," and (ii) a "second region which extends in the circumferential direction along a support surface," as recited in independent claim 1. Nor does Nakanishi disclose that the sleeve part 12 (asserted by the Office as corresponding to the claimed "first region") has a radial thermal conductivity greater than a circumferential thermal conductivity.
Instead, Nakanishi teaches orienting fillers 31 randomly to increase thermal conductivity "in the direction perpendicular to each surface of the teeth part 11 between the split core 10 and the edgewise coil 13." This disclosure addresses heat conduction perpendicular to tooth surfaces, but does not disclose, teach, or suggest that any portion of the insulator 12, has a radial thermal conductivity greater than a circumferential thermal conductivity. Therefore, Nakanishi fails to teach or suggest, at least, wherein the resin portion comprises: a first region which extends in a radial direction along a coil side surface facing a circumferential direction of the coil; and a second region which extends in the circumferential direction along a support surface facing the one radial side of the core back portion, wherein the first region has a first thermal conductivity in the radial direction and a second thermal conductivity in the circumferential direction, and the first thermal conductivity is greater than the second thermal conductivity as recited in independent claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because Nakanishi shows the insulator 12 is formed from PPS resin 25 with fillers 31 (FIG. 4, para [0045]). The resin material 25 is molded into the insulator 12 (para [0048], [0071]). The fillers 31 in the molded insulator 12 have the orientation shown in FIG. 8 parallel to a side of the tooth 11 (para [0050],[0051],[0071]). The thermal conductivity of the fillers 31 is an order of magnitude greater than the thermal conductivity of the PPS resin (para [0073]). Nakanishi thereby shows a first thermal conductivity in the radial direction parallel to the tooth 11 is greater than the second thermal conductivity in the circumferential direction orthogonal to the tooth 11 for the insulator 12.
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.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (US 2011/0012445 A1, hereinafter Nakanishi of record) in view of Endo (JP 2010141960 A).
As to claim 1, Nakanishi shows (FIG. 1, 2, 3, 8, 11) A rotating electric machine comprising:
a stator 19 which has an annular shape centered on a center axis; and
wherein the stator comprises:
a stator core 10 which includes a core back portion 10a having an annular shape centered on the center axis;
a coil 13 comprising a bundle of coil wires, the coil 13 being disposed on one radial side of the core back portion; and
a resin portion 12 which fixes the coil to the stator core 10,
wherein the resin portion 12 comprises :
a first region 12b which extends in a radial direction along a coil side surface facing a circumferential direction of the coil 13; and
a second region 12a which extends in the circumferential direction along a support surface facing the one radial side of the core back portion 10a,
wherein the resin portion 12 includes fillers, and
wherein the first region 12b has a first thermal conductivity in the radial direction and a second thermal conductivity in the circumferential direction, and the first thermal conductivity is greater than the second thermal conductivity (para [0032],[0033]; stator 19 is round implies a center axis and a rotating machine para [0038]; fillers para [0050]; in a conventional stator fillers 31 are oriented parallel to each side surface of the teeth 11 such that thermal conductivity is higher in the radial direction and para [0051],[0071]; heat is more easily transferred in the longitudinal direction of the filler Endo para [0036]).
Nakanishi does not show a rotor which is located on one radial side of the stator, the rotor being supported to be rotatable around the center axis.
Endo shows a rotor 120 which is located on one radial side of the stator 140, the rotor 120 being supported to be rotatable around the center axis O (FIG. 1, para [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Nakanishi to have a rotor which is located on one radial side of the stator, the rotor being supported to be rotatable around the center axis as taught by Endo, for the advantageous benefit of driving wheels of a vehicle as taught by Endo (para [0012]).
As to claim 2/1, Nakanishi in view of Endo was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Nakanishi further shows the second region 12a has a third thermal conductivity in the circumferential direction and a fourth thermal conductivity in the radial direction, and the third thermal conductivity is greater than the fourth thermal conductivity (in a conventional stator fillers 31 are oriented parallel to each side surface such that thermal conductivity is higher in the circumferential direction along the core back portion 10a para [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-14 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 prior art does not show or suggest the thermal conductivity directions recited in claim 3.
The prior art does not show or suggest the orientation angles and relative proportions of the fillers recited in claims 4-14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ellett (EP 3091047 A1) shows fillers at specific angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights