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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that Komatsu does not disclose a thixotropic resin, and that Examiner has not used an obviousness analysis to reject the claim. Examiner disagrees. Komatsu discloses using talc as an inorganic filler. Talc is a type of thixotropic agent which gives the same type of properties when mixed into other chemicals. As Komatsu already discloses an example of thixotropic resin, the rejection does not require an obviousness analysis. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Komatsu does not disclose a peristaltic effect, that “the mere fact that Komatsu provides an impregnation of the coil does not support the Examiner’s conclusion.” Examiner disagrees. First, the rejection specifically pointed out that Komatsu discloses the need to make resin flow into the gaps between coils, slots and insulations within the slots, and the ultrasonic vibrations are used to achieve that goal, which is the same as the instant application as disclosed in ¶ [0034]. Komatsu’s disclosure indicates that the vibrations create a peristaltic effect to ensure all the small gaps are filled with minimal air within the varnish. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Le Gaudu is a non-analogous art, and it would not be obvious to combine Komatsu with Le Gaudu. Examiner disagrees. Komatsu does not explicitly disclose how a stator is dropped into a tank. Le Gaudu is relied upon to teach that a holder can be used to drop an object into a tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to look at Le Gaudu and Komatsu and discern that the same holder can be used to drop the stator into the tank. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant makes the same arguments are claim 13, stating that Komatsu does not disclose all the method steps as recited in claim 24. Examiner disagrees. Claim 24 has been amended to independent form, where it is not an apparatus claim, not a method claim. As such, only the structure of the final product is given patentable weight, unless the method steps also imply a different structure from the prior art. Here, the structure made by the method steps does not imply a different structure from the prior art, rendering it anticipated by the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 18-20, 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (JP 2005-285933 A) in view of Le Gaudu (FR 2645367 A1) and Yasuda et al. (US 2018/0258313 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Komatsu discloses apparatus for performing a method for impregnating a winding system (6) arranged in a stator (fan motor stator) of a dynamoelectric machine (fan motor), the apparatus comprising:
an impregnation station (1) designed to apply a thixotropic impregnation resin (5; many resin are known to increase in fluidity when energy is applied to the resin) to the winding system (6) of the stator (fan motor stator); and
a sonotrode (4; piezoelectric vibrator) designed to excite the stator (fan motor stator) and/or the impregnation resin (5) to produce vibrations over a specifiable period of time (1-5 minutes) with an adjustable amplitude and/or frequency, said sonotrode (4) being aligned such as to establish a peristaltic pump effect and/or a thermodynamic distribution effect of the impregnation resin (5) within winding wires of the winding system (6; the vibrator causes the resin to enter the gaps between the coils, indicating that a peristaltic effect occurs).
Komatsu does not disclose the winding system arranged in slots of the stator,
a holder designed to support the stator.
Le Gaudu discloses a holder (14) designed to support the rotor (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Komatsu in view of Le Gaudu to disclose a holder designed to support the stator the holder is designed to simplify assembly by transferring the stator in the D direction from one station to another station.
It is extremely common and well-known within the art to arrange coils within axial slots of a stator as disclosed in Yasuda. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Komatsu to disclose the winding system arranged in substantially axial slots of the stator.
Regarding claim 19/18, Komatsu in view of Le Gaudu and Yasuda was discussed above in claim 18. Le Gaudu further discloses the holder (14) is a traverse (FIG. 3) to which the stator (as modified above in claim 18) is attached.
Regarding claim 20/18, Komatsu in view of Le Gaudu and Yasuda was discussed above in claim 18. Komatsu further discloses the impregnation station (1) is a trickling station or a dipping station (Komatsu discloses both methods of impregnation).
Regarding claim 23/20, Komatsu in view of Le Gaudu and Yasuda was discussed above in claim 20. Komatsu further discloses the dipping station includes a resin tank (1), said sonotrode (4) being placed into the resin tank (1; FIG. 2-3) and/or arranged on an edge of the resin tank (1; FIG. 1-2) for exiting the impregnation resin (5) to produce the vibrations.
Regarding claim 31/18, Komatsu in view of Le Gaudu and Yasuda was discussed above in claim 18. Le Gaudu further discloses the holder (14) is a clamping chuck or rollers (conveyor) to which the stator is attached or on which the stator (as modified above in claim 18) is rolling.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (JP 2005-285933 A) in view of Yasuda et al. (US 2018/0258313 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Komatsu further discloses a dynamoelectric machine (motor, generator, transformer; Best-Mode), comprising:
a stator (fan motor stator); and
a winding system (6) arranged in substantially axial slots of an electromagnetically conductive element of the stator; said winding system (6) being impregnated with an impregnation resin (5) free of indentations and in the absence of drips on the stator.
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose the winding system arranged in substantially axial slots of the stator.
It is extremely common and well-known within the art to arrange coils within axial slots of a stator as disclosed in Yasuda. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Komatsu to disclose the winding system arranged in substantially axial slots of the stator.
The limitations “wetting the winding system by the impregnation resin using a dipping process or a trickling process; inducing vibrations into the stator and/or the impregnation resin over a specifiable period of time with an adjustable amplitude and/or freguency; ending the induced vibrations at an end of the specifiable period of time; and keeping the stator at rest for a specifiable time after the vibrations have ended” is a functional limitation within an apparatus claim, rendering it a product-by-process claim. As Komatsu in view of Yasuda discloses all the structure of the claim, it also discloses the process of making the structure as recited in claim 24. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 25/24, Komatsu in view of Yasuda was discussed above in claim 24. Komatsu further discloses constructed for use in maritime, industrial or food processing fields, as a drive for compressors, compactors, fans, mixers or auxiliary drives (Komatsu discloses a fan motor).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the specific limitation of “inducing vibrations into the stator and/or the impregnation resin over a specifiable period of time with an adjustable amplitude and/or frequency; ending the induced vibrations at an end of the specifiable period of time; and keeping the stator at rest for a specifiable time after the vibrations have ended” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
The closest prior art Komatsu discloses inducing vibrations onto a stator or into a resin to coat the stator, but does not disclose ending the vibrations and keeping the stator at rest after the vibrations have ended.
Michaelis (DE 1809825) also discloses a similar invention as Komatsu, but Michaelis discloses that the vibrations are constantly on so that impregnation can be done for other windings or metal objects.
Claims 14-17 and 26-29 are allowable for depending upon claim 13.
Claims 21-22 and 30 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.
Regarding claim 21/19, the specific limitation of “the sonotrode (20) excites the stator (2) to produce the vibrations via the traverse (23; FIG. 6)” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
None of the prior arts discloses a method of introducing the vibrations through the holder of the stator.
Claim 22 is allowable for depending upon claim 21.
Regarding claim 30/20, the specific limitation of “the vibrations are induced into the stator via the clamping chuck or via the rollers on which the stator is rolling and which are excited via a sonotrode,” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
None of the prior art discloses a method of introducing vibrations through a clamping chuck or a roller.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Seye 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 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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
