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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference characters 127 and 129 [FIG. 1C] are not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
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 21-40 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 claims 21 | 31 | 39 - The statement “at least one conductive leg in the first plurality of legs or the second plurality of legs has an electrical conductivity that varies between an upper and a lower portion of the at least one leg.” contradicts with the specification and at least FIG. 8A – while the claims give the impression that only one conductive leg has an electrical conductivity that varies between an upper and a lower portion of the leg, the description when consulted, it teaches that feature in different way, it teaches it as sections or components with an electrical conductivity that varies. The specification specifically discloses that at paragraph [00076] Figs. 1A - 1D and now also to Figs. 8A - D, using additive manufacturing (AM) techniques, the windings 14 can be constructed in component parts and assembled. The component parts can include upper components 30 (close to the opening of slot 15 when assembled in the stator) and lower components 32(close to the bottom of slot 15 when assembled). Also, paragraph [00077] discloses that When windings 14 are constructed of separate component parts, the upper and lower parts 30 and 32 can be built with different electrical conductivity (EC) to further reduce losses in winding 14 – which renders claims 21-40 indefinite. For examining purposes the statement will be considered as changes in electrical conductivity between upper and lower sections, which is an inherent property due to the effectiveness of cooling between the sections.
In claims 22-23, the statements “the electrical conductivity of the at least one leg is lower in a portion adjacent the slot than in a portion that is not adjacent the slot … the electrical conductivity of the at least one leg is higher in a portion adjacent a bottom of the slot than in a portion that is not adjacent the bottom of the slot.” Are unclear, besides the argument above, it is unclear how a leg [see legs of components 30 and 32, fig. 8A] that is housed/enclosed in a slot has a portion be adjacent the slot or not adjacent the slot or adjacent bottom of the slot or not adjacent bottom of the slot, which renders the claims indefinite. For examining purposes the statement will be considered as changes in electrical conductivity between upper and lower section, which is an inherent property due to the effectiveness of cooling between the sections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 21-23 | 27-29 | 31-32 | 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PYRHOENEN et al. CN 103444055 A [PYRHOENEN].
Regarding claims 21-23 | 31 | 39, PYRHOENEN teaches A stator [Abstract teaches a stator] comprising: a plurality of open-slot iron core segments [the stator iron core (801) is provided with a plurality of stator teeth and stator slots of the stator winding is provided with a plurality of stator coils (803), fig. 8], the open-slot iron core segments being aligned in a side-by side configuration [the stator iron core (801) is provided with a plurality of stator teeth and stator slots of the stator winding is provided with a plurality of stator coils (803), fig. 8], wherein slots are formed between each pair of adjacent open-slot core segments [the stator iron core (801) is provided with a plurality of stator teeth and stator slots of the stator winding is provided with a plurality of stator coils (803), fig. 8]; and a plurality of windings [stator coils (803) or 703, fig. 8] each of the windings comprising: a first plurality of conductive legs [the annotated fig. 7 shows the legs F1, see below]; and a second plurality of conductive legs [the annotated fig. 7 shows the legs F2, see below] connected to the first plurality of legs through a conductive end member [CE, see below, and 706, fig. 7] to form a coil configuration [figs. 7-8], wherein at least one conductive leg in the first plurality of legs or the second plurality of legs has an electrical conductivity that varies between an upper and a lower portion of the at least one leg [see above - For examining purposes the statement will be considered as changes in electrical conductivity between upper and lower section, which is an inherent property due to the effectiveness of cooling between the sections], wherein each of the first and second plurality of legs [F1 and F2] comprises a duct formed therein [see the ducts that enclose elements 704 and 704’].
Regarding claim 27, PYRHOENEN teaches The stator of claim 21, wherein the at least one leg [one leg of F1 OR F2] is constructed in a series of layers [each leg has 4 layers around 704 or 704’, or at least one leg could mean more than one leg and that means more than one leg that together constructed in a series of layers, see F1 or F2 below].
Regarding claim 28, PYRHOENEN teaches The stator of claim 21, wherein the first plurality of legs and the second plurality of legs [F1 and F2] each include a duct formed therein [see the ducts that enclose elements 704 and 704’, fig. 7].
Regarding claim 29, PYRHOENEN teaches The stator of claim 28, wherein a heat pipe [pipes 704 and 704 ' without the cooling liquid] is received in the duct in each of the first and second plurality of legs [F1 and F2, see below].
Regarding claims 32 | 40, PYRHOENEN teaches The winding of claims 31 and 39, wherein the electrical conductivity of the first and second plurality of conductive legs [F1 and F2, see below] at a first end of the coil [see 704, 704’ to the right] is greater than the electrical conductivity of the first and second plurality of conductive legs at a second end of the coil [see 704, 704’ to the left, it is an inherent feature due to the effectiveness of cooling between the ends].
Regarding claim 36, PYRHOENEN teaches The winding of claim 31, wherein each of the legs in the first and second plurality of legs is constructed in a series of layers [each leg of F1 and F2 has 4 layers around 704 or 704’, fig. 7].
Regarding claim 37, PYRHOENEN teaches The winding of claim 31, wherein each of the legs in the first and second plurality of legs comprises a duct [see the ducts that enclose elements 704 and 704’, fig. 7].
Regarding claim 38, PYRHOENEN teaches The winding of claim 37, wherein the duct in each of the legs in the first and second plurality of legs receives a heat pipe [pipes 704 and 704’ without the cooling liquid].
PNG
media_image1.png
644
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 24-26 | 30 | 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PYRHOENEN et al. CN 103444055 A [PYRHOENEN].
Regarding claims 24-25 | 33-34, PYRHOENEN discloses the claimed invention except for the first and second plurality of legs are additively manufactured, the first and second plurality of legs are additively manufactured using selective laser sintering. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any mentioned method for manufacturing the plurality of legs, since it was known in the art that the legs should be manufactured in a way to serve the function it is made for, and since applicant has not disclosed that any method solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any of them.
Regarding claims 26 | 35, PYRHOENEN discloses the claimed invention except for at least one leg comprises annealed additively manufactured AlSilOMg varying from 15.7M S/m to 17.6M S/m or each of the legs in the first and second plurality of legs comprises annealed additively manufactured AlSil0Mg varying from 15.7M S/m to 17.6M S/m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to achieve AlSil0Mg varying from 15.7M S/m to 17.6M S/m, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 30, PYRHOENEN discloses the claimed invention, at paragraph [0056] teaches that pipe can be made of stainless steel, but does not teach that the heat pipes are constructed of copper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the pipe to be made of copper for thermal conductivity, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD A MUSLEH whose telephone number is ((571)272-9086. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571 272 3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamad A Musleh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights