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.
Specification
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: “ROTARY ELECTRICAL MACHINE AND INDUSTRIAL MACHINE COMPRISING RESIN BOBBINS WITH GAP HOLE”.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al. (US20200161971, “E Silva”) in view of Enomoto et al. (WO2020017133, “Enomoto”, using translation from IDS).
Re claim 1, E Silva discloses a rotary electrical machine comprising:
a rotor 3 (figs 3-4, [0075]);
a stator core 7 that includes a plurality of slots between the rotor and a back yoke (figs 3-4, [0078]);
plastic bobbins 100 each of which includes a plurality of coil insertion holes 106a-b arranged along a radial direction of the stator core 7 (figs 1-2 & 5, [0065]-[0066], note: 100 has layers 112a-c formed between it & conductors 60a-b, cooling channels 10 and teeth 8, respectively-see [0088-0091]) and is fit into a slot (figs 3-5); and
a first gap hole 107b provided to a back-yoke-side side wall that is a side wall closest to the back yoke among side walls of the bobbin 11 (figs 1-2, 5 & below).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
E Silva discloses claim 1 except for the bobbin is made of resin (discloses bobbin 100 is made of plastic).
Enomoto discloses resin as a plastic used to make bobbin 2 (fig 2a, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bobbin of E Silva to be made of resin, as disclosed by Enomoto, in order to make the bobbin from a known plastic and bobbin material, as demonstrated by Enomoto.
Re claim 2, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses the first gap hole 107b is a through hole that passes through the back-yoke-side side wall in an axial direction of the stator core 7 (figs 1-2, 5 & above for claim 1).
Re claim 3, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses the back-yoke-side side wall is thicker than a partition wall 105c positioned between two coil insertion holes 106a, 106b next to each other among the plurality of coil insertion holes (figs 1-2, 5 & above for claim 1, [0067]).
Re claim 4, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 3 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses a width of the first gap hole 107b in the radial direction of the stator core is larger than a thickness of the partition wall 105c (figs 1-2, 5 & above for claim 1).
Re claim 5, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a resin thickness between the first gap hole 107b and a coil insertion hole 106b that is closest to the first gap hole among the plurality of coil insertion holes (E Silva, figs 1 & 5, thickness of 105b in the radial direction; Enomoto discloses resin) is substantially same as a thickness of the partition wall 105c (E Silva, figs 1-2, 5 & above for claim 1).
Re claim 6, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses a resin thickness around the first gap hole 107b is substantially same as a thickness of the partition wall 105c (E Silva, figs 1, 5 & above for claim 1; Enomoto discloses resin, resin thickness of 100 around 107b).
Re claim 7, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses a width of the first gap hole 107b in the radial direction of the stator core is narrower than a width of each of the plurality of coil insertion holes 106a, 106b in the radial direction of the stator core (figs 1 & 5).
Re claim 9, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 3 as discussed above. Enomoto further discloses a thermoplastic 112b is in the first gap hole 107b (fig 5, [0089] & [0097]).
E Silva discloses claim 9 except for the thermoplastic is a resin and is injected into the first gap hole.
Enomoto discloses resin as a thermoplastic ( [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the thermoplastic of E Silva to be made of resin, as disclosed by Enomoto, in order to make the resin from a known thermoplastic material, as demonstrated by Enomoto.
With respect to the resin is injected into the first hole gap, the limitation of injected is a method of manufacturing limitation and is not given patentable weight since "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the first gap hole of E Silva in view of Enomoto includes resin in the first hole it has the same claimed structure of the invention, regardless of whether the resin is injected or not.
Re claim 10, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Enomoto further discloses a slit extending in an axial direction of the stator core is provided to a resin wall between the first gap hole 107b and the back yoke (fig 5, [0090-0091], slit in 100 formed between two protrusions 114 & filled w/ 112c).
Re claim 11, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses a second gap hole 107a is provided to a side wall that is closest to an opening of the slot among the side walls of the bobbin 100 (figs 1-2, 5 & above for claim 1).
Re claim 12, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 11 as discussed above and further discloses a thickness of resin around the second gap hole 107b (fig 5, thickness of 101a, 105a & 101c-d w/o 114) is substantially same as a thickness of a partition wall 105c positioned between two coil insertion holes 106a, 106b next to each other among the plurality of coil insertion holes 106a, 106b (fig 5).
Re claim 13, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 11 as discussed above. Enomoto further discloses a thermoplastic 112b is in the second gap hole 107a (fig 5, [0089] & [0097]).
E Silva discloses claim 13 except for the thermoplastic is a resin and is injected into the first gap hole.
Enomoto discloses resin as a thermoplastic ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the thermoplastic of E Silva to be made of resin, as disclosed by Enomoto, in order to make the resin from a known thermoplastic material, as demonstrated by Enomoto.
With respect to the resin is injected into the second hole gap, the limitation of injected is a method of manufacturing limitation and is not given patentable weight since "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the second gap hole of E Silva in view of Enomoto includes resin in the first hole it has the same claimed structure of the invention, regardless of whether the resin is injected or not.
Re claim 15, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses an industrial machine comprising the rotary electrical machine according to claim 1 (figs 3-4, since the rotary electrical machine discloses all the structural limitations of claim 1 it would be capable of being employed in an industrial machine).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over E Silva in view of Enomoto and in further view of Almeida E Silva et al. (US20200161947, “Almeida E Silva”).
Re claim 8, E Silva in view of Enomoto disclose claim 1 as discussed above. E Silva further discloses the slot is formed between two teeth 8a, 8b next to each other among a plurality of teeth 8 that protrude from the back yoke toward a center direction of the stator core 7 (figs 4-5).
E Silva is silent with respect to a joined portion between a side surface of each of the two teeth and an inside surface of the back yoke, the side surface and the inside surface surrounding the slot, has a curved surface.
Almeida E Silva discloses a joined portion between a side surface of each of the two teeth 8a, 8b and an inside surface of the back yoke, the side surface and the inside surface surrounding the slot, has a curved surface (figs 3 & below).
PNG
media_image2.png
236
432
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 substitute one known element (right angled joined portion as disclosed by E Silva) for another known equivalent element (curved joined portion) resulting in the predictable result of forming a corner of a slot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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 main reason for indicating claim 14 as allowable is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, of:
“The rotary electrical machine according to claim 11, wherein a second opening portion 22de that is in a slit form and extends in an axial direction of the stator core 2 is provided to a resin wall 22dc between the second gap hole 22da and the opening of the slot 21c.”
As discussed above in claim 10, E Silva disclose a slit in the resin wall of the first gap hole 107b (fig 5). E Silva discloses the second gap hole but does not disclose it is in slit form and it is not apparent that one in the art would make the second gap hole in slit form since it is for a cooling channel 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
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 on (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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights