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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/240,030, filed on 30 August 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (iii), Fig.5, in the reply filed on 02 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Upon review, the restriction requirement is rescinded and a new requirement is made as follows:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14 & 16-21, drawn to a stator arrangement, classified in H02K1/18.
II. Claim 15, drawn to a method of manufacture, classified in H02K15/12.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product, i.e., a stator completely surrounded by a bell-shaped encapsulation.
There would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Per MPEP 808.02, burden is established by a showing of one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
In the instant case, at least (C) applies since a search in different classes/subclasses is necessary.
In light of Applicant’s election of apparatus Species (iii) in the response, for purposes of compact prosecution it will be understood that Invention I (which encompasses this and other species) has been constructively elected for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, method claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference to specific claims (p.3:13-17) should be removed as the claim numbering is subject to change.
On p.27, in the last paragraph, Fig.4 is referred to as showing first and second webs 35 & 37. But, these are shown in Fig.3, not Fig.4. Similarly, on p.28, in the last paragraph, Fig.4 is referred to as showing depression 34, but this is shown in Fig.3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 & 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, change “Claims” to ---Claim---.
In claim 7, change “radical” to ---radial---.
In claim 17, remove duplicate recitation “for receiving the stator” (line 3).
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.
Claims 5-6, 8, 16 & 20-21 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.
In claim 5, “the second circumferential portion” lacks antecedent basis and in claim 6, “the first circumferential portion and/or the second circumferential portion” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a circumferential portion (30)” whereas claim 4 recites “a first circumferential portion (30)” and “a second circumferential portion (24).” Thus, it will be presumed for examination purposes the claims depend from claim 4, which positively recites the noted features.
In claim 8, “the holding body” and “the two webs (35, 37)” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 16, “the axial end wall (22)” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 20, “the rotation lock (70)” lacks antecedent basis. It will be presumed for examination purposes that the claim depends from claim 10, which positively recites the noted feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Turk (US 3,382,383).
Regarding claim 1, Turk teaches a stator arrangement 2 for a radial flux motor 1 having an axis of rotation, comprising:
a stator housing (tubular shell) 10, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion (liner) 20 for receiving the stator 2,
a stator 2, which is arranged on the circumferential portion (c.2:13-15) and
an encapsulation body (epoxy casting resin) 26, wherein the stator 2 is encapsulated in the stator housing 10 and the encapsulation body is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] 1 (i.e., stator pressed into shell 11 and epoxy casting compound injected to hermetically seal stator 2; c.2:13-15; c.2:44-59; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
253
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the encapsulation body 26 is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing 10 via one or more undercuts (i.e., corresponding to projections 60 at top LH and RH sides of shell 10) in order to secure the stator in the axial direction (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, the stator housing comprises an axial end wall (baffle end rings) 11/12 which extends away from the circumferential portion (liner) 20 in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 26 extends in the axial direction from the stator 2 to the axial end wall 11/12 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, the circumferential portion (liner) 20 is a first circumferential portion, wherein the stator housing furthermore comprises a second circumferential portion (shell) 10 which is arranged spaced apart in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 20, and wherein the encapsulation body 26 extends in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 20 to the second circumferential portion 26 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5,2 at least one of the one or more undercuts is formed in the second circumferential portion 10 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, at least one of the one or more undercuts (projections 60 at top LH and RH sides of shell 10) is formed by a surface, which is inclined with respect to the axis of rotation, in…the second circumferential portion 10 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, the stator (40) is arranged in contact in the axial direction with a radially protruding offset (baffle end rings) 11/12 of the circumferential portion (liner) 20 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, the encapsulation body 26 comprises a resin material (c.2:44-46).
Regarding claim 16, at least one of the one or more undercuts is formed in the axial end wall (i.e., at least one undercut is formed at elongated opening 17; Fig.1).
Claims 1-4, 11-12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 6,359,354).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a stator arrangement 1 for a radial flux motor having an axis of rotation, comprising: a stator housing 18, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion (bearing supporting section) 17 for receiving the stator,
a stator (including iron core 2), which is arranged on the circumferential portion 17, and
an encapsulation body (epoxy resin molded part) 24, wherein the stator is encapsulated in the stator housing and the encapsulation body is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] 3 (i.e., the stator 1…and the plurality of lead wires 21 are integrally molded with an epoxy resin by one pour; c.3:62-c.4:29; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
632
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the encapsulation body 24 is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing 17/18 via one or more undercuts (not numbered, at RH axial end of bearing supporting section 17) in order to secure the stator 1 in the axial direction (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, the stator housing 17/18 comprises an axial end wall (web) 20 which extends away from the circumferential portion 17 in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 24 extends in the axial direction from the stator 1 to the axial end wall 20 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, the circumferential portion 17 is a first circumferential portion, wherein the stator housing furthermore comprises a second circumferential portion 18 which is arranged spaced apart in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 17, and wherein the encapsulation body 24 extends in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 17 to the second circumferential portion 18 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, the encapsulation body 24 comprises a resin material (epoxy resin, c.4:1-16).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe teaches a radial flux motor for a fan (abstract), comprising: a motor housing 18, a shaft 13, which is mounted rotationally in the motor housing, a rotor 6, which is arranged for conjoint rotation on the shaft in the motor housing, a stator arrangement 1 as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the stator is arranged radially adjacent to the rotor in the motor housing (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 16, at least one of the one or more undercuts is formed in…the circumferential portion 17 (i.e., at RH axial end; Fig.1).
Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishihara et al. (US 9,869,321).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara teaches a stator arrangement 120 for a radial flux motor 101 having an axis of rotation, comprising: a stator housing (casing/frame hub) 2/62, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion (bearing holding portion) 63 for receiving the stator,
a stator 50, which is arranged on the circumferential portion (c.4:56-57), and
an encapsulation body (resin) 80, wherein the stator 50 is encapsulated in the stator housing 2/62 and the encapsulation body 80 is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing 2/62 in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] 4 (i.e., resin 80 coats stator and fills cup-like shape of frame hub 62; c.5:63-67; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
417
391
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the stator housing comprises an axial end wall (frame hub) 62 which extends away from the circumferential portion (bearing holding portion) 63 in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 80 extends in the axial direction from the stator 50 to the axial end wall 62 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, the circumferential portion (bearing holding portion) 63 is a first circumferential portion, wherein the stator housing furthermore comprises a second circumferential portion (not numbered, radially outer portion of frame hub 62) which is arranged spaced apart in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 63, and wherein the encapsulation body 80 extends in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 63 to the second circumferential portion (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, the encapsulation body (resin) 80 comprises a resin material.
Regarding claim 12, the radial flux motor is for a fan (abstract) and comprises: a motor housing (casing) 2, a shaft 1, which is mounted rotationally in the motor housing, a rotor 110, which is arranged for conjoint rotation on the shaft 1 in the motor housing 2, a stator arrangement as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the stator is arranged radially adjacent to the rotor in the motor housing (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 19, the encapsulation body (resin) 80 comprises a synthetic resin material (abstract).
Claims 1, 3 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huber et al. (EP 3,940,238).
Regarding claim 1, Huber teaches a stator arrangement 40 for a radial flux motor having an axis of rotation, comprising:
a stator (motor) housing 20, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion (inner wall) 22.1 for receiving the stator 40,
a stator 40, which is arranged on the circumferential portion 22.1, and
an encapsulation body (casting compound) 28, wherein the stator 40 is encapsulated in the stator housing 20 and the encapsulation body 28 is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator 40 is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] 5 (i.e., casting compound creates a simple and compact mechanical connection between the motor stator and the motor housing; ¶[0018]; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image4.png
576
507
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the stator (motor) housing 20 comprises an axial end wall 21 which extends away from the circumferential portion (inner wall) 22.1 in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 28 extends in the axial direction from the stator 40 to the axial end wall 21 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, the radial flux motor is for a fan (compressor) 12.10 comprising: a motor housing 20, a shaft 12, which is mounted rotationally in the motor housing, a rotor 12.4, which is arranged for conjoint rotation on the shaft in the motor housing, a stator arrangement 40 as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the stator is arranged radially adjacent to the rotor in the motor housing (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, the “high voltage” 6 fan comprises a radial flux motor as claimed in claim 12, and a fan impeller 12.10 which is arranged for conjoint rotation on the shaft 12, outside of the motor housing 20 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 14, a cooling system “for a fuel cell drive or a battery-electric drive,” 7 comprising a cooling circuit 22.1, a heat exchanger (i.e., waste heat is at least partially exchanged from the casting compound 28 into the air conducted in the diffuser or spiral channel, ¶[0019]; stator coolant gives off heat in coolant channel 23, ¶[0083]), and a “high-voltage” fan as claimed in Claim 13, which is designed and arranged to extract heat from the cooling circuit via the heat exchanger.
Claims 1- 3, 7, 11 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon et al. (DE 102013227056).
Regarding claim 1, Simon teaches a stator arrangement 102 for a radial flux motor 100 having an axis of rotation, comprising:
a stator housing 7, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion 10 for receiving the stator (Fig.2b),
a stator 102, which is arranged on the circumferential portion 10 and
an encapsulation body (encapsulation/overmolding) 5, wherein the stator 102 is encapsulated in the stator housing 7 and the encapsulation body is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] 8 (i.e., encapsulation/overmolding is positively connected with fastening web/ring 13 of housing with positive locking means; ¶[0022], ¶[0059], ¶[0099]; Figs.1b,2b&9e).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
547
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the encapsulation body 5 is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing 7 via one or more undercuts (defined by fastening web/ring 13) in order to secure the stator in the axial direction (Fig.2b).
Regarding claim 3, the stator housing 7 comprises an axial end wall which extends away from the circumferential portion in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 5 extends in the axial direction from the stator to the axial end wall (Figs.8b&9e).
Regarding claim 7, the circumferential portion comprises at least one web on which the stator (40) is arranged so as to be at least partially in contact therewith in the radical direction (4).
Regarding claim 11, the encapsulation body 5 comprises a resin material (¶[0011]).
Regarding claim 19, the encapsulation body 5 comprises a synthetic resin material, e.g., thermoplastic (¶[0011]).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 16 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Sekii (US 11,025,106) in view of Neal (US 6,437,464).
Regarding claim 1, Sekii teaches a stator arrangement 41 for a radial flux motor 1 having an axis of rotation, comprising: a stator housing (base/sleeve) 1/12, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion (sleeve) 12 receiving the stator 41,
a stator (stator core) 41, which is arranged on the circumferential portion 22 (Fig.2).
PNG
media_image6.png
516
575
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sekii does not teach “an encapsulation body, wherein the stator [41] is encapsulated in the stator housing [1/12] and the encapsulation body is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic].9
But, Neal teaches a spindle motor including a stator 20 encapsulated in a stator housing (base) 22 by an encapsulation body 14 of phase change material to completely surround the stator (abstract; c.5:9-52; c.7:50-65; Figs.3-4), i.e., “in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body”. Neal’s encapsulation has a vibratory dampening effect (c.3:43-51) and reduces stack up tolerances in manufacture (c.8:15-32).
PNG
media_image7.png
299
376
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Sekii’s motor with an encapsulation body, wherein the stator is encapsulated in the stator housing and the encapsulation body is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] since Neal teaches encapsulation of the stator would have dampened vibrations and reduced stack up tolerances in manufacture.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination, Neal’s encapsulation body 14 is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing via one or more undercuts (not numbered, Fig.2) in Sekii’s sleeve 12 in order to secure the stator in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 3, in the combination, Sekii’s stator housing 1/12 comprises an axial end wall (base plate) 11 which extends away from the circumferential portion 12 in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 14 of Neal extends in the axial direction from the stator to the axial end wall (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 4, in the combination, Sekii’s circumferential portion (sleeve) 12 is a first circumferential portion, wherein the stator housing 1 furthermore comprises a second circumferential portion 11 which is arranged spaced apart in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 12, and wherein the encapsulation body 14 of Neal extends in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion to the second circumferential portion (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 6, in Sekii at least one of the one or more undercuts (not numbered) is formed by a surface, which is inclined with respect to the axis of rotation, in the first circumferential portion (sleeve) 12 (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, in Sekii the stator 41 is arranged in contact in the axial direction with a radially protruding offset (not numbered) of the circumferential portion 12 (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 11 in Neal the encapsulation body 14 comprises a resin material (e.g., thermoplastic resin; c.6:31-54).
Regarding claim 16, in Sekii at least one of the one or more undercuts (not numbered) is formed…in the circumferential portion (sleeve) 12 (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 19, Neal’s thermoplastic resins include synthetic resins.
Claims 7-8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Watanabe, Ishihara or Simon as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pelstring (US 6,104,570).
None of Watanabe, Ishihara or Simon teach the circumferential portion comprises “at least one web on which the stator is arranged so as to be at least partially in contact therewith in the radi[a]l direction” (claim 7).
But, Pelstring teaches a disc drive spindle motor including a stator 48 arranged on a circumferential portion (stationary member) 70 of a stator housing (base) 12, the circumferential portion comprising at least one web defined by grooves 84A-84D on which the stator is arranged so as to be at least partially in contact therewith in the radial direction (c.3:64-c.4:7; Fig.3). The grooves are filled with adhesive and form a bond between the stator and the stationary member. By varying the selection of grooves that are filled with adhesive, the stator's resonant vibrational frequency can be tuned away from the driving force frequencies and their harmonics (c.4:8-27).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
590
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the circumferential portion of Watanabe, Ishihara or Simon with at least one web on which the stator is arranged so as to be at least partially in contact therewith in the radial direction since Pelstring teaches a web/s would have enabled a bond between the stator and the stationary member and tuning of the stator's resonant vibrational frequency away from the driving force frequencies and their harmonics.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, in Pelstring a depression (groove) 84A into which a holding body (i.e., adhesive) 86 projects and forms an undercut is formed between the two webs, and wherein the depression extends in the axial direction (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 17, in Pelstring the circumferential portion 70 comprises two axially spaced-apart webs including a first web and a second web (defined, e.g., by grooves 84A/84B and 84B/84C, respectively) for receiving the stator 48 (Fig.3).
Claims 10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Watanabe or Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baumeister et al. (US 6,924,575).
None of Watanabe or Ishihara further teaches “a rotation lock which is formed by engagement of the stator and/or of the encapsulation body in the stator housing, wherein the rotation lock (70) is formed by at least one groove (72) which extends in the axial direction (2) in the circumferential portion (30) and in which the stator (40) and/or the encapsulation body (50) engages.
But, Baumeister teaches an electric machine including a stator 12 comprising stacked sheet metal stampings 19 forming laminated core 20, a stator housing including hub 36a, and a rotation lock formed by at least one groove (not numbered, defined by undercut anchoring elements 42, 42a) which extends in the axial direction in the circumferential portion of the hub 36a and in which the laminated core 20 engages (Fig.2c). Baumeister’s rotation lock formed by the undercut anchoring elements tightly connects the hub and laminated core together (c.2:15-31).
PNG
media_image9.png
538
519
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Watanabe or Ishihara with a rotation lock which is formed by engagement of the stator and/or of the encapsulation body in the stator housing since Baumeister teaches a rotation lock would have tightly connect the hub and laminated core together.
Regarding claim 20 10, Baumeister’s rotation lock comprises the at least one groove (not numbered) and at least one protrusion (undercut anchoring elements) 42, 42a in the stator 12, the protrusion protruding from an annular stator laminated core 20 of the stator 12 radially inwardly into the groove and extending in the axial direction (Fig.2c).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Turk or Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hein et al. (US 6,583,532).
Turk and Watanabe teach a resin encapsulation, but not a “synthetic” resin, per se.
But, Hein teaches a cast-resin body 94 for a stator of a rotating electrical machine comprising a synthetic resin with inorganic fillers with high intrinsic thermal conductivity, to thereby increase thermal conductivity, reduce the thermal coefficient of expansion and increase resistance to temperature changes (abstract; c.3:20-39; Fig.2).
PNG
media_image10.png
603
878
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide any of Turk or Watanabe with a synthetic resin since Hein teaches a synthetic resin would have increased thermal conductivity, reduced the thermal coefficient of expansion and increased the resistance to temperature changes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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 of record does not appear to teach the claimed stator including, inter alia, “wherein at least one out of the first web (35) and the second web (37) extends in sections or intermittently in the circumferential direction (6).” In particular, Pelstring teaches circumferential grooves 84A-84D machined into the surface of the stationary member 70 (c.3:64-c.4:27; Fig.3), but they appear to be continuous in the circumferential direction and thus do not form webs that extend in sections or intermittently in the circumferential direction.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, in particular Baumeister, does not appear to teach the claimed stator including, inter alia, a rotation lock “wherein the at least one groove (72) defines an axial groove stop (72a) against which an axial end (74a) of the protrusion lies contactingly, such that the stator (40) is axially positioned relative to the stator housing (20).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. 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, Tulsidas C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2 Claims 5-6 are understood as depending from claim 4, as noted in section 10 above.
3 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
4 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
5 Idem.
6 This preamble limitation states the intended use and is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
7 Idem.
8 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
9 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
10 Claim 20 is understood to depend from claim 10, as noted in section 10 above.
Prosecution Insights