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 04 September 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1-6 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 04 September 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges that Kadotani does not disclose the amended limitations of claim 1, reciting the potting material covering an “outside of the winding and the stator chamber” and completely surrounding the stator winding within the slot. No explanation or evidence is provided in support of these erroneous allegations. Kadotani explicitly discloses (pages 6-7 of the translation):
“… After this, the mold resin 9 is poured into the cylindrical can 8 through a hole provided in the outer can 8a, and after hardening, the hole is sealed by contacting 16. In this way, the stator coil 7 is pinned with a cylindrical can 8 to prevent it from being directly exposed to water.
… and the mold resin 9 reaches the wedge 6 made of aromatic polyamide board. However, since moisture diffuses easily in the lateral direction (fiber direction) of the wedge 6, it diffuses over a wide area of the wedge 6, and it takes an extremely long time for it to reach its saturation moisture absorption rate. Since the coil insulating layer 3, slot liner 4, spacer 5, etc., are made of aromatic polyamide, it will take an even longer period of time for them to reach their saturation moisture absorption rate…”
As disclosed in the cited text, Kadotani discloses the potting material completely saturating and filling the slot around the winding. This provides the potting material over an entire outside of the winding and stator chamber, i.e. the slot, and positions the potting material radially outside of the spacer and between the spacer and the winding, as required by the amended limitations of claim 1. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 are maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 7 of the Remarks) alleges that claims 4 and 6 are allowable because of their dependency on claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above and the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 18 June 2026 was/were filed after mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadotani et al. (JP S58-201555 A), hereinafter referred to as “Kadotani”.
Regarding claim 1, Kadotani discloses a stator (fig. 1-2; page 2), comprising:
a stator core [1] having a slot opening [14] (fig. 2; pages 6-7);
a winding [2] attached to the stator core [1] (fig. 2; pages 6-7);
a potting material [9] sealed in a stator chamber [1s] of the stator core [1] (fig. 2; page 6); and
a spacer [6s] configured to close the slot opening [14] (fig. 2; pages 6-7),
wherein the spacer [6s] is made of an insulating material (page 6; “aromatic polyamide”, e.g. Kevlar or Nomex), and has a linear expansion coefficient lower than that of the potting material [9] (page 3; “epoxy resin” is known to have typical linear expansion coefficients of between 60 and 80 x10-6/°C, while aromatic polyamides have typical linear expansion coefficients of between -2 and 6.3 x10-6/°C),
PNG
media_image1.png
385
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the potting material [9] is configured to cover an entire outside of the winding [2] and the stator chamber [1s] (fig. 2; pages 6-7), and
wherein the spacer [6s] is configured to be positioned radially inward of the potting material [9] with respect to a center of the stator, and be positioned outside the potting material [9] with respect to the winding [2] and the stator chamber [1s] (fig. 1-2; pages 6-7; “mold resin 9 is poured into the cylindrical can 8… the mold resin 9 reaches the wedge 6… it diffuses over a wide area of the wedge 6, and it takes an extremely long time for it to reach its saturation moisture absorption rate. Since the coil insulating layer 3, slot liner 4, spacer 5, etc., are made of aromatic polyamide, it will take an even longer period of time for them to reach their saturation moisture absorption rate…”; the resin completely fills the stator slot between the winding and the surrounding surfaces of the stator core and of the spacer).
Regarding claim 2, Kadotani discloses the stator according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the stator comprises a wedge [6w] that is adjacent to the spacer [6s] and in contact with the stator core [1] (fig. 2; as disclosed in the present application, the spacer and wedge are formed integrally, with the spacer being the portion extending across the slot opening and the wedge being the portion engaged in grooves on the sides of adjacent stator teeth).
Regarding claim 3, Kadotani discloses the stator according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the spacer [6s] and the wedge [6w] are integrally formed members (fig. 2; pages 6-7), and
wherein the spacer [6s] extends from the wedge [6w] toward the slot opening [14] (fig. 2; pages 6-7; as disclosed in the present application, the spacer and wedge are formed integrally, with the spacer being the portion extending across the slot opening and the wedge being the portion engaged in grooves on the sides of adjacent stator teeth).
Regarding claim 5, Kadotani discloses a canned motor, comprising:
a main shaft (not shown; page 6; “submersible motors with high output” inherently possess a shaft for transmitting the rotation of the rotor to an external device or medium);
a rotor fixed to the main shaft (not shown; page 2, 6);
a can [8] surrounding the rotor (fig. 1-2; page 6); and
a stator according to claim 1, as stated above, the stator being in contact with an outer circumferential surface of the can [8] (fig. 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadotani in view of Kamata et al. (JP2007-236098A), hereinafter referred to as “Kamata”.
Regarding claim 4, Kadotani discloses the stator according to claim 1, as stated above. Kadotani does not disclose that the spacer [6s] is made of a sponge.
Kamata discloses a stator [4] comprising a winding [10] disposed in slots and a spacer [11b] in the slot opening (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0016-0018), wherein the spacer [11b] is made of a sponge (fig. 2b; ¶ 0018-0021).
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 spacer of Kadotani from a sponge as taught by Kamata, in order to help absorb the thermal expansion of the potting material thereby preventing deformation of the stator (¶ 0023 of Kamata).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadotani in view of Swift et al. (US 2006/0218777 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Swift”.
Regarding claim 6, Kadotani discloses the canned motor according to claim 5, as stated above. Kadotani does not disclose that the can [8] and the spacer [6s] are integrally formed members.
Swift discloses a canned motor comprising a can [78] surrounded by a stator [10] having a winding [40] disposed in slots [32] (fig. 7; ¶ 0031) and a spacer [78s] configured to close the slot opening (fig. 7; ¶ 041-0043), wherein the can [78] and the spacer [78s] are integrally formed members (fig. 7; ¶ 0041-0043; the can and spacer are formed integrally, with the can being the portion extending across the inner surface of the stator and the spacer being the portion extending into the slot openings).
PNG
media_image3.png
233
586
media_image3.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 can and spacer of Kadotani from a single piece of material as taught by Swift, in order to provide direct contact to features such as dimples or fins thereby increasing its exposed surface area and further facilitating heat dissipation from the windings (¶ 0044 of Swift).
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).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Hozumi et al. (US 2013/0272904 A1) discloses a canned motor having integral wedges and spacers closing the stator slots.
Ruffing et al. (US 4,200,818) discloses a stator having slots closed by a spacer and filled by a potting material, the spacer having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the potting material.
Myers (US 2,201,699) discloses a stator having slots closed by a spacer and a separately formed wedge.
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
