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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsunori et al. (JP5728981, reference is made to the translation provided by Applicants) in view of Elantas (“Impregnation Roll Dip Impregnation of stator with ELANTAS impregnation resin”).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5, Tatsunori teaches a method of manufacturing a stator (abstract) comprising: a preparing step in which a workpiece in which a plurality of coil pieces forming a stator coil are attached to a stator core (0030), the tips of the one of the coil pieces and another of the coil pieces are welded together on one axial end side (0031); an immersion step of immersing the workpiece in a bath of liquid resin material (0039) so that an impregnation target area including the welded joint between the tips is immersed (abstract and Figure 7); a removal step of removing the workpiece from the bath (0046); and a final curing step to cure the resin (0047). Tatsunori fails to teach an additional rotation step after the workpiece is in a raised position as required by claims 1, 2 and 5.
However, Elantas teaches a method for impregnating a stator (title) comprising: rotating the stator around the stator central axis in a liquid resin material (timestamp 0:44); raising the stator from the liquid resin material while continuing to rotate the stator while the target coating area is separated from the bath and the target area is oriented in a direction intersecting a vertical direction which will cause liquid material dripping downward from one circumferential position in the target area to adhere to another position in the target area (timestamp 1:09-1:11). Elantas teaches the raised position of the stator overlaps the bath when viewed in the vertical direction (timestamp 1:09-1:11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatsunori’s process by including a further rotation step after the stator is raised from the liquid resin and positioned above the liquid resin bath as disclosed by Elantas. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that excess liquid is spread across the target surfaces when the stator is raised and prevent resin dripping off and being wasted, as well as to yield a smooth exterior surface that avoids drops formed from gravity that would result from simply raising the stator and letting resin drip from it.
2. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsunori in view of Elantas as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0223599).
Regarding claim 3, Tatsunori in view of Elantas teach all the limitations of claim 2 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach during the rotation step that the stator is oriented obliquely downward at an angle between the stator central axis and horizontal of less than 45 degrees. However, Nakamura teaches a similar process for forming a stator (abstract) wherein the stator is immersed in a coating bath and the posture is obliquely downward (Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatsunori in view of Elantas’ process by orienting the impregnation target area obliquely downward as shown by Nakamura. One would have been motivated to make this modification such that only the desired impregnation area is contacted with resin rather than other areas where it might not be desirable to have resin. Furthermore, the selection of the angle used during the rotation would be a function of the size of the impregnation target area, the size of the bath and the size of the stator to provide optimum coating of only the desired impregnation area. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for the angle through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
3. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsunori in view of Elantas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishigaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4564646).
Regarding claim 4, Tatsunori in view of Elantas make obvious all the limitations of claim 1, including curing the resin after the rotation step (see above), but fail to teach the liquid resin material can be cured by irradiation with UV light and the method including a further step of irradiating the target area with UV light after the rotation step. However, Nishigaki teaches a UV curable resin (abstract and column 5, lines 13-25) for impregnating stator (column 5, lines 13-19 and claim 11), wherein the stator is impregnated with the resin followed by being raised out of the resin and then irradiated with UV light for curing the resin (column 5, lines 13-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatsunori in view of Elantas’ process by utilizing a UV curable liquid resin and then curing after the rotation step with UV light. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Nishigaki teaches that the UV light curable resin can produce insulated machinery improved in reliance and performance in a shorter treating time (abstract).
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
February 21, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717