CTNF 18/925,116 CTNF 97267 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that the values a, b, x, R are set such that b/a becomes a first predetermined value T1 or less and such that an area of an inside of the recess shape represented by ((b - a) R + ax) / 2 becomes a second predetermined value T2 or more . The claim does not define the first predetermined value T1 or the second predetermined value T2 — no value, range, or defining relationship for T1 or T2 is set forth in the claim itself. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined, because whether any given coil falls within the claim depends on threshold values that the claim leaves unspecified. Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis for reciting the same undefined values T1 and T2. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). Claims 3, 4, and 6 recite that T2 is “a value in which a pressure loss of a cooling liquid … becomes a reference value or less.” The “reference value” is itself undefined and is left to subjective selection; the specification states that the reference value “can be appropriately set in accordance with the specification of the rotary electric machine.” One of ordinary skill is thus not apprised of the bound the claim requires. Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1 and 5. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1–6 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth above. Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter: Regarding claim 1 , the closest prior art of record is Matsumoto(US202000235627A1), does not teach or fairly suggest the limitation that “the virtual string length a of the recess shape, the arc length b of the recess shape, the depth x of the recess shape, and the radius R of the cooling liquid flow groove are set such that the b/a becomes a first predetermined value T1 or less” . Matsumoto does not recognize the chord-to-arc geometric ratio b/a of an arc-shaped cooling groove formed in the side surface of a rectangular coil wire as a deliberately-bounded design parameter, nor identify any physical consideration (insulation-film integrity during press-forming, manufacturability, or otherwise) that would motivate setting b/a at or below a specific threshold. Goto(US200500104708A1) teaches setting the radius R of arc-shaped chamfers provided at the four corners of a square coil wire so that the cross-sectional area and outer-circumference length of the wire fall within prescribed ratios that preserve a uniform insulating layer (¶¶ [0011]–[0014], [0021], [0036]; FIGS. 1–4). The Examiner notes, however, that Goto’s R is the radius of an arc-shaped chamfer at the corners of the wire’s outer profile — a feature shaping the wire’s perimeter — and is not the radius of a recess or groove formed in the wire’s side surface, as recited in the present claims. Goto therefore does not teach setting the recess parameters a, b, x, R of a cooling-liquid flow groove at or by reference to any threshold T1. Cronin(US200500151431A1) teaches cooling ducts formed between a cooling jacket and the outer surface of a stator, in which the duct cross-section may be an arch shape and the duct size is selected for coolant velocity and back pressure (¶¶ [0024]–[0026]). Cronin’s ducts are formed in the cooling jacket — not in the side surface of a rectangular coil wire — and Cronin does not address the chord-to-arc geometry b/a of the duct cross-section. No combination of Matsumoto, Goto, and Cronin would teach or fairly suggest setting the parameters a, b, x, R of an arc-shaped cooling-liquid flow groove on the side surface of a rectangular coil wire such that b/a becomes a first predetermined value T1 or less. Claims 2-4 would be allowable for being dependent on claim 1. Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, “a first liquid room that is provided so as to face an end surface on a first side in an axis direction of the stator core” and “a second liquid room that is provided so as to face an end surface on a second side in the axis direction of the stator core” , wherein “a cooling liquid that is introduced into the first liquid room flows into the second liquid room through the plurality of slots” . Matsumoto cools the stator coil by ejecting cooling fluid from a rotor channel and discharging it onto the coil end portions from a cooling-medium pipe (¶¶ [0051]–[0052]), and does not disclose first and second liquid rooms facing the two end surfaces of the stator core through which the cooling liquid passes by way of the slots. Goto and Cronin do not remedy this deficiency. Claim 5 is would also be allowable for the reasons set forth in (claim 1) above as they apply to its recitation of the recess parameters a, b, x, R. 13-03 Claim 6 would be allowable for being dependent on claim 5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. MATSUMOTO (US202000235627A1) is an application with a similar electric rotating machine. GOTO (US200500104708A1) is an application with a similar rotating electric machine which has a very similar stator configuration. CRONIN (US200500151431A1) is an application with a similar rotating electric machine which has a very similar stator configuration. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. 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://pairdirect.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). /MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/925,116 Page 2 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/925,116 Page 3 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/925,116 Page 4 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/925,116 Page 5 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/925,116 Page 6 Art Unit: 2834
Prosecution Insights