DETAILED ACTION
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 responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 06 August 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-11 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 06 August 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 1-2 of the Remarks) alleges that claims 4-5 and 9 have been amended to overcome the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112. The amendments being sufficient to render the claims definite and further limiting, said grounds have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 2-6 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that Kato does not disclose every single conductor being a distance A1 from one adjacent conductor and a distance A2 from another adjacent conductor. While this is true, this limitation is not recited in the claim language. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of winding elements” and “each respective one of the plurality of winding elements in the second region” being located at said distances, but there is no requirement that said “plurality” include every single conductor. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
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 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeltzel (DE 19535700 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Hoeltzel”, in view of Kato et al. (JP 2004-173403 A), hereinafter referred to as “Kato”.
Regarding claim 1, Hoeltzel discloses a rotor for an electric machine (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0001), the rotor comprising:
a rotor body [1], which includes a plurality of axially progressing grooves [1g] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0017-0018; the windings exit the grooves at “groove exit 13”);
a plurality of winding elements [1e], the plurality of winding elements [1e] being arranged in the plurality of axially progressing grooves [1g] of the rotor body [1] in two layers [8,9] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0017-0019); and
a winding head [1h] arranged axially adjacent to the rotor body [1], the winding head [1h] including two regions including a first region [r1] and a second region [r2], in the first region [r1] the plurality of winding elements [1e] progressing in an axial direction, in the second region [r2] the plurality of winding elements progressing at an angle to the axial direction (fig. 2; the windings exit the slots in the axial direction, then are bent to extend inclined circumferentially),
PNG
media_image1.png
298
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the winding head [1h] including a winding head support [5] and a plurality of retaining elements [11,12,17,18] (fig. 1, 4; ¶ 0017),
each of the plurality of retaining elements [11,12,17,18] respectively including a tension bolt [12] and a support body [11,17], the support body [11,17] being arranged at least partially in a radial direction outside of the plurality of winding elements [1e] (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0017),
each of the tension bolts [12] respectively penetrating the support body [11,17] – which is associated therewith – and is screwed into the winding head support [5] by way of a thread (fig. 1, 4; ¶ 0017; “threaded bolts 12” are screwed into “winding support element 5” and secured by “fastening nuts 18 and a fastening nut locking device 17”),
wherein at least a part of the tension bolt [12] penetrating the winding head [1h] in the radial direction in the second region [r2] (fig. 1-2),
wherein each respective one of the plurality of winding elements [1e] in the second region [r2] – in which each respective one of the plurality of winding elements [1e] progresses at the angle to the axial direction – being located at a distance A1 from a first directly adjacent one of the plurality of winding elements [1e] of a same one of the two layers [8,9] and at a distance A2 from a second directly adjacent one of the plurality of winding elements [1e] of a same one of the two layers [8,9], A2 being equal to A1 (fig. 2; the spacing between each adjacent winding element appears to remain constant).
Thus, Hoeltzel does not disclose A2 being greater than A1.
Kato discloses a plurality of winding elements [C] having a first region [P1,P2,P3] and a second region [P4] (fig. 22; ¶ 0100-0102), wherein each respective one of the plurality of winding elements [C] in the second region [P4] – in which each respective one of the plurality of winding elements [C] progresses at the angle to the axial direction – being located at a distance A1 [X] from a first directly adjacent one of the plurality of winding elements [C] of a same one of the two layers and at a distance A2 [Y] from a second directly adjacent one of the plurality of winding elements [C] of a same one of the two layers, A2 [Y] being greater than A1 [X] (fig. 22; ¶ 0103-0104).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the winding elements of Hoeltzel having different distances between adjacent windings elements in the second region as taught by Kato, in order to effectively prevent corona discharge and improve the voltage tolerance of the winding head (¶ 0105 of Kato).
Regarding claim 2, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein Kato further discloses that half of the plurality of winding elements [C] forms a first group [C1], wherein another half of the plurality of winding elements [C] forms a second group [C2], wherein the plurality of winding elements [C1,C2] of the first group [C1] protrude by a length L1 [a] from the {rotor} body [2] in the axial direction before the plurality of winding elements [C1,C2] of the first group [C1] progress at an angle to the axial direction, wherein the plurality of winding elements [C1,C2] of the second group [C2] protrude by a length L2 [b] from the {rotor} body [2] in the axial direction before the plurality of winding elements [C1,C2] of the second group [C2] progress at an angle to the axial direction, and wherein L1 [a] is greater than L2 [b] (fig. 22; ¶ 0107-0109).
Regarding claim 6, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the plurality of retaining elements [11,12,17,18] respectively include a stop surface [12s], which is configured for coming into contact with the winding head support [5] when screwing in the tension bolt [12] (fig. 4; ¶ 0017-0018), in order to thereby adjust the radial length with which the tension bolt [12] protrudes from the winding head support [5] to a predefined dimension, wherein the predefined dimension is calculated so that the support body [11,17] is not pressed against the plurality of winding elements [1e] in a resting position of the rotor (fig. 4; when the nut is tightened, the windings and spacers are compressed, but the support body never directly contacts the windings due to the “support elements 11”).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 6, as stated above, wherein a respective one of the plurality of retaining elements [11,12,17,18] includes an elastic element [11] which is arranged in a space between the support body [11,17] and the plurality of winding elements [1e] – associated with the elastic element [11] – which are held by the respective one of the plurality of retaining elements [11,12,17,18] (fig. 4; ¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 8, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 6, as stated above, wherein the tension bolt [12] includes a step [12s], wherein the stop surface [12s] is formed by the step [12s] of the tension bolt [12] (fig. 4; the threaded portion ends where the diameter of the bolt increases, i.e. the step).
Regarding claim 9, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 8, as stated above, wherein the tension bolt [12] includes a step [11] which is configured for being pressed against the sleeve [16] when the tension bolt [12] is tightened (fig. 4; ¶ 0017; the axially-extending step of the support contacts the axial end of the sleeve).
Regarding claim 10, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 6, as stated above, wherein a respective one of the plurality of retaining elements [11,12,17,18] includes a sleeve [16] which includes an end, wherein the tension bolt [12] penetrates the sleeve [16], wherein the stop surface [12s] is formed by the end of the sleeve [16], which is oriented towards the winding head support [5] (fig. 4; ¶ 0018; both the sleeve and the large-diameter portion of the bolt end at the surface of the winding head support).
Regarding claim 11, Hoeltzel, in view of Kato, discloses the rotor according to claim 6, as stated above, wherein the support body [11,17] includes a protuberance which is sleeve-like and includes an end (fig. 4; ¶ 0017-0018; the support elements include axial extensions).
Hoeltzel does not disclose that the stop surface [12s] is arranged at the end of the protuberance. The difference between the arrangement of Hoeltzel and the claimed arrangement is that the sleeve [16] and the axial extension of the support body [11] are separate, rather than integral parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the support body and the sleeve of Hoeltzel from a single integral part, in order to simplify assembly by reducing the total number of parts. Further, it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure as disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5 is/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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the rotor according to claim 1, wherein half of the plurality of winding elements forms a first group, wherein another half of the plurality of winding elements forms a second group, wherein the plurality of winding elements of the first group have a radius of curvature R1 at which the plurality of winding elements of the first group turn from the axial direction to a direction progressing at an angle to an axis of the rotor after emergence from the rotor body, wherein the plurality of winding elements of the second group have a radius of curvature R2 at which the plurality of winding elements of the second group turn from the axial direction to a direction progressing at an angle to an axis of the rotor after emergence from the rotor body, and wherein R1 is greater than R2.
While the prior art discloses various arrangements of the winding heads, including differing spacings and axial lengths of the winding elements, it does not disclose varying the radii of curvature between the axial and inclined portions of the elements. Further, Kato specifically discloses that “the radius of curvature, slot pitch, etc. … are set to be the same” even when said differing spacings and axial lengths are provided. Thus, the prior art would appear to teach away from the combination of differing radii of curvature and differing spacings or axial lengths. As such, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the invention recited in claim 3 and shown in figure 2 of the application.
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.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights