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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 16-18, 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Forbes et al. (US 4712035).
Regarding claim 16, Forbes et al. disclose:
A stator segment (claim 1, Fig 5) for an electrical machine (abstract), the stator segment comprising:
a base (35) configured to mount to a stator structure;
a tooth (57) comprising a first end and an opposite second end, the first end of the tooth mounted on the base (35);
a stator winding (67) arranged around the tooth (57); and
a resilient element (insulator 75) arranged between the stator winding (67) and the base (35).
Regarding claim 17/16, Forbes et al. disclose wherein the tooth (57) comprises a first lateral wall and an opposite second lateral wall (Fig 5 – it is T-shaped), the first and second lateral walls comprising a protrusion (63a, 63b) at the second end of the tooth that retains the stator winding at or near the second end of the tooth (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 18/17, Forbes et al. disclose wherein the protrusions (63a,b) are integrally formed with the first and second lateral walls of the tooth.
Regarding claim 28, Forbes et al. disclose:
A method for assembling a stator segment (abstract, C2 ll 21-23), comprising:
providing a tooth (57, Fig 5 shows it provided) extending between a first end and a second end;
providing a base (35);
arranging a stator winding (67) around the tooth (57, Fig 1 shows it arranged);
arranging one or more resilient elements (75) on the base or on the stator winding (67) at the first end of the tooth (57, Figs 1 and 3 shows it arranged);
joining the first end of the tooth to the base (dotted lines indicating joining by numeral 45r); and
mounting the tooth to the base at the first end of the tooth (Figs 1 and 3 shows it mounted);
wherein the stator winding (67) is retained at least partially by the one or more resilient elements (75) located between the base (35) and the first end of the tooth (57).
Regarding claim 29/28, Forbes et al. disclose wherein the tooth (57) has a first lateral wall and an opposite second lateral wall (Fig 5 – it is T-shaped), the first and second lateral walls having a protrusion (63a,b) at the second end of the tooth, and wherein the stator winding (67) is retained between the protrusions (63a,b) and the one or more resilient elements (75).
Regarding claim 30/28, Forbes et al. disclose wherein mounting the first end of the tooth (65r) to the base (45r) comprises mechanically joining the base to the first end of the tooth (Figs 1 and 5 show it mounted).
Regarding claim 31/28, Forbes et al. disclose further comprising mounting the segment (63) to a stator structure (35, Figs 1 and 5 shows it mounted).
Regarding claim 32/31, Forbes et al. disclose wherein mounting the stator segment (57) to a stator structure (35) comprises mechanically joining the stator segment to the stator structure (Figs 1 and 5 shows them mechanically mounted).
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Forbes et al. (US 4712035).
Regarding claim 20/16, Forbes et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except further comprising one or more shims between the base and the stator winding.
However, Forbes et al. in another embodiment (Fig 10) teach one or more shims (69) between the base (35) and the stator winding (67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. to further comprising one or more shims between the base and the stator winding, as Forbes et al. further teach.
The motivation to do so is it would provide insulation (C6 ll 61-66).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Forbes et al. (US 4712035) in view of Jedinger et al. (US 2020/0091807).
Regarding claim 19/16, Forbes et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except wherein the resilient element comprises a ripple spring.
Jedinger et al. teaches a device wherein the resilient element comprises a ripple spring (para 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. wherein the resilient element comprises a ripple spring, as Jedinger et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would to permit one to press the armature windings against adjacent elements (para 26 of Jedinger et al.).
Claim(s) 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Forbes et al. (US 4712035) in view of Urresty et al. (US 20210028674).
Regarding claim 21/16, Forbes et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except comprising mechanical fasteners that mount the first end of the tooth to the base.
Urresty et al. teach a device comprising mechanical fasteners (22,122, Fig 3, para 43) that mount the first end of the tooth (180) to the base (31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. to comprising mechanical fasteners that mount the first end of the tooth to the base, as Urresty et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to fix the stator segment to the stator rim (para 43 of Urresty et al.).
Regarding claim 22/21, Forbes et al. in view of Urresty et al. disclose the invention as discussed above. Forbes et al. do not teach wherein the mechanical fasteners extend through a bottom of the base into the tooth.
Urresty et al. teach a device wherein the mechanical fasteners (22,122, Fig 3) extend through a bottom of the base into the tooth (Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. in view of Urresty et al. wherein the mechanical fasteners extend through a bottom of the base into the tooth, as Urresty et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to fix the stator segment to the stator rim (para 43 of Urresty et al.).
Regarding claim 23/16, Forbes et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except further comprising an axially extending bar arranged within the tooth, the axially extending bar comprising a plurality of holes, and wherein the stator segment is fixable to the stator structure by bolts extending through the stator structure and the holes in the axially extending bar.
Urresty et al. teach a device further comprising an axially extending bar (123, Fig 3) arranged within the tooth (180), the axially extending bar comprising a plurality of holes (88, para 72) and wherein the stator segment is fixable to the stator structure by bolts (23) extending through the stator structure and the holes in the axially extending bar (para 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. to further comprising an axially extending bar arranged within the tooth, the axially extending bar comprising a plurality of holes, and wherein the stator segment is fixable to the stator structure by bolts extending through the stator structure and the holes in the axially extending bar, as Urresty et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to fix the stator segment to the stator rim (para 43 of Urresty et al.).
Regarding claim 24/23, Forbes et al. in view of Urresty et al. disclose the invention as discussed above. Forbes et al. do not teach wherein the axially extending bar has a T-shaped axial cross-section.
Urresty et al. teach a device wherein the axially extending bar (22,122) has a T-shaped axial cross-section (Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. in view of Urresty et al. wherein the axially extending bar has a T-shaped axial cross-section, as Urresty et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to fix the stator segment to the stator rim (para 43 of Urresty et al.).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Forbes et al. (US 4712035) in view of Nashiki (JP 2003180044).
Regarding claim 25/16, Forbes et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except wherein the tooth and the base are made of a grain-oriented electrical steel and wherein the tooth and the base have different grain orientations.
Nashiki teaches a device where the magnetic flux passing through the two types of grain-oriented electrical steel sheets having different ferromagnetism directions can exist (paras 23, 25,47,57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. wherein the tooth and the base are made of a grain-oriented electrical steel and wherein the tooth and the base have different grain orientations, as Nashiki teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to align the direction of the magnetic flux & increasing the efficiency (paras 24,47) and cost (para 14 of Nashiki).
Claim(s) 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Forbes et al. (US 4712035) in view of Hirosawa et al. (US 2019/0386534).
Regarding claim 26/16, Forbes et al. disclose wherein the tooth (57, Fig 5) comprises a plurality of first laminations and the base comprises a plurality of second laminations (35).
Forbes et al. do not teach wherein the plurality of first laminations is thinner than the plurality of second laminations.
Hirosawa et al. teach a device wherein the plurality of first laminations (23, Fig 3) is thinner than the plurality of second laminations (21,22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Forbes et al. wherein the plurality of first laminations is thinner than the plurality of second laminations, as Hirosawa et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is that it would permit one to reduce eddy current losses (paras 93-94 of Hirosawa et al.).
Regarding claim 27/16, Forbes et al. disclose comprising a plurality of the teeth (57) mounted to the base (35), each tooth comprising a respective stator winding (67) and resilient element (75) arranged between each of the stator windings and the base.
Claim(s) 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Urresty et al. (US 20210028674) in view of Forbes et al. (US 4712035).
Regarding claim 33, Urresty et al. disclose:
A generator (paras 65,66,77) comprising a stator (para 43) and a rotor (para 71) and an air gap (para 34) radially arranged between the stator and the rotor, wherein the stator comprises:
a stator rim (31, para 43); and
a plurality of stator segments (35), each of the stator segments comprising a base (para 43),
a tooth (80, para 54) extending between a first end and a second end wherein the tooth is mounted on the base at the first end (Fig 5),
a stator winding (81) arranged around the tooth (80), and
the stator segments (35) are mounted to the stator rim (31, para 43).
Urresty et al. do not teach a resilient element arranged between the stator winding and the base.
Forbes et al. teaches an apparatus with a resilient element (69) arranged between the stator winding (67) and the base (by 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Urresty et al. to have a resilient element arranged between the stator winding and the base, as Forbes et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would provide insulation for the components (C7 ll 23-35 of Forbes et al.).
Regarding claim 34/33, Urresty et al. teaches wherein the generator is a direct-drive wind turbine generator (para 66).
Regarding claim 35/33, Urresty et al. teach wherein the generator is a permanent magnet generator (paras 12-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights