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 17 October 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-6 are now pending in the application.
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 17 October 2024 and 13 November 2025 was/were filed before mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wedge that is adjacent to the spacer and in contact with the winding” (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Disclosure
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Stator with Potting Material and Spacer having Lower Linear Expansion Coefficient.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “a wedge that is adjacent to the spacer and in contact with the winding”. The application as originally filed does not disclose the wedge in contact with the windings due to the potting material [27] and the insulating paper [35] being interposed in between (fig. 1-2, 5; ¶ 0027 of the specification). Since it appears this may simply be a transcription or translation error, this claim has been interpreted as requiring the wedge to be in contact with the stator core, as it is shown in the drawings (i.e. the wedge contacts the sides of the slot opening [25]).
Claim 3 is rejected solely due to its dependency on claim 2.
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), and
PNG
media_image1.png
385
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
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).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
761
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 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).
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
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