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 .
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130058812) in view of Weber (US 20190149023), further in view of Bansal et al. (US 4994700).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches:
An electric water pump (paras 2,9) comprising:
a stator (26, Fig 1) including a rotor accommodation part (see annotated Fig 2 below) accommodating a rotor (25) and a plurality of coils (24) arranged around a rotating shaft (27) of the rotor in a circumferential direction; and
wherein the stator (26) includes a plurality of teeth (23a, para 68) which protrude in a direction of the rotor accommodation part (by 25, Fig 2), and around each of which the coil (24) is capable of being wound (para 69).
Kim does not teach a molding part surrounding the stator to insulate the plurality of coils, wherein the molding part is injected onto the stator to surround the entire coil while having a plurality of flow paths formed between the coils and passing through in a direction of the rotating shaft and wherein the molding part is over-molded to integrally surround the coils, and defines a plurality of flow paths passing through between the coils, so that a fluid introduced into the flow paths exchanges heat with the coils while direct contact between the fluid and the coils is blocked.
Weber teaches an apparatus having a molding part (14, Fig 1) surrounding the stator (11-13) to insulate the plurality of coils (17), wherein the molding part is injected onto the stator (para 35) to surround the entire coil (17) while having a plurality of flow paths (18) formed between the coils (17) and passing through in a direction of the rotating shaft.
Weber does not teach wherein the molding part is over-molded to integrally surround the coils, and defines a plurality of flow paths passing through between the coils, so that a fluid introduced into the flow paths exchanges heat with the coils while direct contact between the fluid and the coils is blocked.
Bansal et al. teaches a device wherein the molding part (34, Fig 2) is over-molded to integrally surround the coils (30), and defines a plurality of flow paths (38,32, see annotated Fig 2 below) passing through between the coils (30), so that a fluid introduced into the flow paths exchanges heat with the coils while direct contact between the fluid and the coils is blocked (C4 ll 7-55, Figs 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim to have a molding part surrounding the stator to insulate the plurality of coils, wherein the molding part is injected onto the stator to surround the entire coil while having a plurality of flow paths formed between the coils and passing through in a direction of the rotating shaft, as Weber teaches and wherein the molding part is over-molded to integrally surround the coils, and defines a plurality of flow paths passing through between the coils, so that a fluid introduced into the flow paths exchanges heat with the coils while direct contact between the fluid and the coils is blocked, as Bansal et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to provide cooling (para 15 of Weber) and providing a passage for flow of oil coolant to directly cool the conductors (C5 ll 45-52 of Bansal et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1, Kim teaches wherein the stator includes a plurality of teeth (not labeled in Fig 2, but by numerals 23a, para 68) which protrude in a direction of the rotor accommodation part (Fig 2), and around each of which the coil (24) is capable of being wound, and the tooth has an inner peripheral surface adjacent to the rotor accommodation part (space inside stator 26), extending in a circumferential direction, and having an area of a vertical area of the tooth (by 24 and 23a), around which the coil is wound, or greater.
Regarding claim 3/2, Kim teaches wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tooth (see annotated Fig 2 below), which is adjacent to the rotor accommodation part, has a predetermined gap with that of the adjacent tooth, and the flow path communicates with the rotor accommodation part (Figs 1-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
597
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130058812) in view of Weber (US 20190149023), further in view of Bansal et al. (US 4994700) and further in view of Endo et al. (US 20100207466).
Regarding claim 4/2, Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except, wherein the molding part is injected to surround the stator in all directions while exposing the inner peripheral surface of the tooth, which is adjacent to the rotor accommodation part.
Endo et al. teach a device comprising an insulating member attached to said stator teeth (Fig 7), for insulating said coil wire and said stator teeth from each other and having the tooth portion exposed (claim 3, Figs 4 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. with the teachings of Endo et al. to wherein the molding part is injected to surround the stator in all directions while exposing the inner peripheral surface of the tooth, which is adjacent to the rotor accommodation part.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired level of insulation (paras 14-15), cost, level of magnetic flux and weight.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130058812) in view of Weber (US 20190149023), further in view of Bansal et al. (US 4994700) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210175767).
Regarding claim 5/1, Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except further comprising a terminal electrically connected and coupled to the stator while having the same axis as the stator.
Lee et al. teach a device further comprising a terminal (400, Figs 2-3) electrically connected and coupled to the stator while having the same axis as the stator (para 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. to further comprising a terminal electrically connected and coupled to the stator while having the same axis as the stator, as Lee et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is that it would allow one to make an integral component (para 29 of Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 6/5, Kim in view of Weber, and Bansal et al., further in view of Lee et al. teaches the invention as discussed above. Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. do not teach wherein the molding part is injected onto the stator and the terminal to thus be integrated with the stator and the terminal.
Lee et al. teach a device wherein the molding part is injected onto the stator and the terminal to thus be integrated with the stator and the terminal (paras 29-30, Figs 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al., further in view of Lee et al. wherein the molding part is injected onto the stator and the terminal to thus be integrated with the stator and the terminal, as Lee et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is that it would allow one to make an integral component (para 29 of Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 7/6, Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al., further in view of Lee et al. teaches the invention as discussed above. Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. do not teach wherein the terminal further includes an electrode protruding outward, and the molding part is injected onto the stator and the terminal to expose the electrode.
Lee et al. teach a device wherein the terminal (400) further includes an electrode (150, 410, Fig 2-3, para 29) protruding outward, and the molding part is injected onto the stator and the terminal to expose the electrode (paras 29-30, Figs 1-3 – inherent in order for 150 to connect to 300/400 and 121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al., further in view of Lee et al. wherein the terminal further includes an electrode protruding outward, and the molding part is injected onto the stator and the terminal to expose the electrode, as Lee et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is that it would allow one to make an integral component (para 29 of Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 8/6, Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al., further in view of Lee et al. teaches the invention as discussed above. Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al. do not teach wherein the terminal includes a circular inner terminal and an outer terminal that is formed concentrically with the inner terminal, and the inner terminal and the outer terminal being connected to each other, and further includes a distribution port formed between the inner terminal and the outer terminal and corresponding to the flow path.
Lee et al. teach a device wherein the terminal (400) includes a circular inner terminal (330, Fig 3) and an outer terminal (310, paras 28-29) that is formed concentrically with the inner terminal, and the inner terminal and the outer terminal being connected to each other (via 320), and further includes a distribution port (space between 330) formed between the inner terminal and the outer terminal and corresponding to the flow path (para 28 – vertical through hole).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim in view of Weber and Bansal et al., further in view of Lee et al. wherein the terminal includes a circular inner terminal and an outer terminal that is formed concentrically with the inner terminal, and the inner terminal and the outer terminal being connected to each other, and further includes a distribution port formed between the inner terminal and the outer terminal and corresponding to the flow path, as Lee et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is that it would allow one to make an integral component (para 29 of Lee et).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed. Please see previous office action for details.
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.”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights