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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “28B” for side wall portion and “28C” for support projections both disclosed in [0074] of the originally-submitted specification. Additionally, the drawings are objected to because the reference character(s) “22B” and “22C” found in Fig 13 are not mentioned in the originally-submitted specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-9: replacement of all instances of “the resin member” to “the ring-shaped resin member”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aoi et al. (US20180166942) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Aoi discloses a stator manufacturing method, comprising:
providing a stator assembly including a stator core (“stator” (23)) having coils (“coils” (43)) wound on a plurality of teeth (“teeth” (412)) projecting from a yoke (“housing” (22));
arranging a ring-shaped resin member (“O-ring” (70)) at least at one end portion in an axial direction of the stator core such that at least part of the ring-shaped resin member is crushed when pressed by a mold ([0050], [0052], “first mold” (61) and “second mold” (62));
clamping the stator assembly inside the mold with the ring-shaped resin member arranged at the at least one end portion in a state in which the ring-shaped resin member is pressed (Fig 4, [0052]); and
injecting a molding resin into the mold ([0047]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houzumi et al. (US20150357888) in view of Thomason (US5306459) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Houzumi discloses a stator manufacturing method, comprising:
providing a stator assembly including a stator core (“annual stator core” (3) and “phase coil” (4)) having coils (“phase coils” (4U, 4V, 4W)) wound on a plurality of teeth (“teeth” [0033]) projecting from a yoke (“annular stator core” (3), Fig 1, [0033]), and a case surrounding an outer periphery of the stator core (“housing” (2), Fig 1);
arranging a ring-shaped resin member (“primary molding member” (200), Fig 13-14), [0038]) at least at one end portion in an axial direction of the case (Fig 18, [0084]); and
injecting a molding resin into the mold ([0084]).
While Houzumi does disclose that the method comprises a step of closing a mold (“second die” (400), Fig 18) around the stator assembly ([0084]) and that the radial positioning of the ring-shaped resin member is controlled ([0081]), Houzumi does not explicitly disclose that the arrangement of the ring-shaped member is done such that at least part of the ring-shaped resin member is crushed when pressed by the mold and that the stator assembly is clamped inside the mold with the ring-shaped resin arranged at the at least one end portion in a state in which the ring-shaped resin member is pressed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Thomason, which is within the molding art, teaches that during the method of molding a molded member (“insert” (24b)), when a mold (“mold plate” (36) and “mold plate” (34)) is closed around the molded member, the closing of the mold is done such that at least a part of the molded member is crushed when pressed and the stator assembly inside the mold with the molded member arranged at the at least one end portion is clamped in a state in which the molded member is pressed (C4 L48-58, in conjunction with use of a “rib” (28), Fig 7-9) for the benefit of compensating for dimensional variations between molded members and height differences in the mold cavities to ensure a desired contour (C5 L1-15).
Regarding claim 3, modified Houzumi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Houzumi teaches that the ring-shaped resin member is a bus-bar unit (“busbar unit” (100)); and the stator assembly includes a plurality of bus-bars having one end portions electrically connected to end portions of the coils (“winding terminals” (5)), with the bus-bars having other end portions that extend outside the stator assembly through the ring-shaped resin member (Fig 1-2, “phase terminals” (14, 24, 34)). Regarding claim 8, Houzumi discloses a stator manufacturing method, comprising:
providing a stator assembly including a stator core (“annual stator core” (3)) having coils (“phase coils” (4U, 4V, 4W)) wound on a plurality of teeth (“teeth” [0033]) projecting from a yoke (Fig 1, [0033]);
arranging a ring-shaped resin member (“primary molding member” (200), Fig 13-14), [0038]) at least at one end portion in an axial direction of the case (Fig 18, [0084]); and
injecting a molding resin into the mold ([0084]).
While Houzumi does disclose that the method comprises a step of closing a mold (“second die” (400), Fig 18) around the stator assembly ([0084]) and that the radial positioning of the ring-shaped resin member is controlled ([0081]), Houzumi does not explicitly disclose that the arrangement of the ring-shaped member is done such that at least part of the ring-shaped resin member is crushed when pressed by the mold and that the stator assembly is clamped inside the mold with the ring-shaped resin arranged at the at least one end portion in a state in which the ring-shaped resin member is pressed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Thomason, which is within the molding art, teaches that during the method of molding a molded member (“insert” (24b)), when a mold (“mold plate” (36) and “mold plate” (34)) is closed around the molded member, the closing of the mold is done such that at least a part of the molded member is crushed when pressed and the stator assembly inside the mold with the molded member arranged at the at least one end portion is clamped in a state in which the molded member is pressed (C4 L48-58, in conjunction with use of a “rib” (28), Fig 7-9) for the benefit of compensating for dimensional variations between molded members and height differences in the mold cavities to ensure a desired contour (C5 L1-15).
Regarding claim 9, modified Houzumi teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Houzumi teaches that the mold includes an upper mold (“second upper mold” (420)) and a lower mold (“second lower mold” (410)) and Thomason teaches the use of a ring shaped rib (“rib” (28)) for a molded member (“insert” (24b)) provided on an outer peripheral face of the resin member that is directly clamped between an upper mold (“mold plate” (36)) and a lower mold (“mold plate” (34), Fig 6-9) when clamped inside the mold (Fig 9, in that the rib is clamped and located directly between mold components..
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houzumi et al. (US20150357888) and Thomason (US5306459) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and in further view of Nakagawa (US20120319512) and Koide et al. (JP2008154348) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Houzumi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Houzumi does not explicitly teach that the ring-shaped resin member is configured from a thermoplastic resin and that the stator manufacturing method further comprises pre-heating at least part of the mold including a portion that will contact the ring-shaped resin member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a1) Nakagawa, which is within the stator molding art, teaches that for the use of resin in molding motors and stator, the use of either thermosetting or thermoplastic resin is commonly known ([0131]) and
a2) Nakagawa’s teachings represents documentary evidence of common knowledge that can be relied upon in making a rejection (see MPEP 2144.03); and
b) Koide, which is within the stator molding art, teaches that it is conventional and required for the resins to be preheated to ensure low curing times and proper resin fluidity ([0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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 4, the closest prior art of record is Houzumi et al. (US20150357888) and Thomason (US5306459) (of record), which teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose that the ring-shaped resin member includes a first ring-shaped projection formed at least at one of a face that contacts the case or a face on an opposite side from the face that contacts the case.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record is Houzumi et al. (US20150357888) and Thomason (US5306459) (of record), which teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose that the ring-shaped resin member includes a first ring-shaped projection formed at least at one of a face that contacts the case or a face on an opposite side from the face that contacts the case.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record is Houzumi et al. (US20150357888) and Thomason (US5306459) (of record), which teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose that the ring-shaped resin member includes a tongue piece that extends along an inner peripheral face of the case, and an indentation able to accommodate entry of a leading end portion of the tongue piece is provided at the inner peripheral face of the case; and the stator manufacturing method further comprises using the mold to press the ring-shaped resin member against the case and to fit a leading end of the tongue piece into the indentation.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record is Houzumi et al. (US20150357888) and Thomason (US5306459) (of record), which teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose that the case is configured from a resin, and the ring-shaped resin member is part of the case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights