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 .
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.
Claims 29 and 30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recited:
“the fabric or the non-woven material is inserted between the wedge and the outer sides of the limbs and is initially shifted or flipped into the stator grooves around the plurality of preformed coils into an area between the two parallel limbs of the plurality of preformed coils prior to the insertion of the plurality of preformed coils and, after insertion of the plurality of preformed coils before the wedge is pressed in, or the fabric or the non-woven material is arranged over both lateral surfaces around an edge or a side of the wedge facing a groove bottom after the insertion and before the wedge is pressed in”
However, the original specification does not describe or disclose the underlined step of claim 29. Therefore, the claim 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.
Claim 30 is rejected for its dependency on claim 29.
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.
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.
Claims 16, 27 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US 2015/0022050 A1) in view of Lenschow (US 2014/0183989 A1) and Zhu et al. (US 2024/0120781 A1).
RE claim 16, Sawada teaches a generator stator 110 (Figs.1-4) comprising: a plurality of stator teeth 115; stator grooves 116 arranged alternately in a circumferential manner (Fig.1); and a plurality of coils 112 inserted into the stator grooves 116, wherein each of the plurality of coils 112 is a partial winding of at least one electrical conductor 112, wherein the partial winding has winding heads (see Fig.4 for end windings at both axial ends) arranged at two opposite ends of the partial winding and two parallel limbs (Fig.4), each of the two parallel limbs having a corresponding inner side and a corresponding outer side; in at least one of the stator grooves (Fig.4), the two parallel limbs of different coils 112 are inserted in such a way that corresponding outer sides of the two parallel limbs face each other and corresponding inner sides of the two parallel limbs face a different one of the plurality of stator teeth 115 delimiting the stator grooves 116, and a wedge 140 is pressed between the corresponding outer sides of the two parallel limbs such that, with the wedge 140 on each of the two parallel limbs, a force is exerted onto the corresponding outer side of the two parallel limbs (¶ 36).
Sawada does not teach:
The stator being utilized in a wind-turbine-generator.
the coils are preformed coils.
RE (i) above, the limitation “wind-turbine-generator” was recited in the pre-amble of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation wind-turbine-generator is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Nevertheless, Sawada suggested that the disclosed electrical machine can be utilized as motor/generator in application that required improved cooling performance (¶ 2, 3). Lenschow evidenced that wind turbine is a well-known application for electrical machine with improved cooling performance (¶ 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the generator stator disclosed by Sawada in any applicable application such as wind-turbine-generator, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii), the final product of the claim invention was disclosed by Sawada. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. It has been held that: "[E]ven 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).
Nevertheless, Zhu suggested that pre-formed coils form concentrated stator windings provided advantages in terms of ease of manufacture, power/torque density, heat dissipation and/or fault tolerance (¶ 21).
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 Sawada by having said coil to be preform coil, as taught by Zhu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 27, Sawada teaches a method for manufacturing a generator stator 110 (Figs.1-4), the method comprising: providing a wind-turbine-generator stator yoke 111 with a plurality of alternately arranged stator teeth 115 and stator grooves 116; inserting two parallel limbs of different ones of a plurality of preformed coils 112 into at least one of the stator grooves 116; and pressing in a wedge 140 between outer sides of the two parallel limbs of the different ones of the plurality of coils 112 inserted in the at least one of the stator grooves such that, on each limb of the two parallel limbs, a force is exerted onto the outer sides of the respective limb of the two parallel limbs (¶ 36).
Sawada does not teach:
the stator being utilized in a wind-turbine-generator.
the coils are preformed coils.
RE (i) above, the limitation “wind-turbine-generator” was recited in the pre-amble of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation wind-turbine-generator is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Nevertheless, Sawada suggested that the disclosed electrical machine can be utilized as motor/generator in application that required improved cooling performance (¶ 2, 3). Lenschow evidenced that wind turbine is a well-known application for electrical machine with improved cooling performance (¶ 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the generator stator disclosed by Sawada in any applicable application such as wind-turbine-generator, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii), Zhu suggested that pre-formed coils form concentrated stator windings provided advantages in terms of ease of manufacture, power/torque density, heat dissipation and/or fault tolerance (¶ 21).
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 Sawada by having said coil to be preform coil, as taught by Zhu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 33/16, as discussed above, Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu teaches a wind-turbine generator comprising: the wind-turbine-generator stator of claim 16.
RE claim 34/33, as discussed above, Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu teaches a wind turbine comprising: the wind-turbine generator according to the wind-turbine generator according to claim 33.
RE claim 35/16, as discussed above, Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu teaches a wind turbine comprising: the wind-turbine generator according to the wind-turbine generator according to claim 16.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Muller (US 6121708).
RE claim 17/16, Sawada in view of Zhu has been discussed above. Fan does not teach the wedge of a plastic.
Oehler teaches suggests that plastic wedge can be made by high strength material such as glass-fiber-reinforced plastic (col.3: 10-15).
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 Sawada in view of Zhu by having teach the wedge to be made of plastic, as suggested by Muller, to improve strength of the wedge.
RE claim 18/17, as discussed above, Muller teaches plastic is a glass-fibre reinforced plastic (col.3: 10-15).
Claims 19-23, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Baumann et al. (US 2010/0007226 A1).
RE claims 19/16 and 20/19, Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu has been discussed above. Sawada further teaches a material 113 is arranged between the wedge 140 and the two parallel limbs (see Fig.4).
Sawada does not teach said material is fabric or non-woven material wherein the fabric is a glass or a PET fabric and the non-woven material is the glass or a PET non-woven material.
Baumann suggests that glass fiber or PET non-woven material are well-known material and commercially available and are currently used for the manual reinsulation of connection points (¶ 39), such material is well-known for absorbing thermomechanical stresses (¶ 41).
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 Sawada in view of Zhu by having said material is fabric or non-woven material wherein the fabric is a glass or a PET fabric and the non-woven material is the glass or a PET non-woven material, as suggested by Baumann, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
RE claims 21/16 and 22/21, Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu has been discussed above. Sawada further teaches material 113 is arranged between the two parallel limbs and a groove wall of the stator grooves 116 (Fig.3).
Sawada does not teach said material is fabric or non-woven material wherein the fabric is a glass or a PET fabric and the non-woven material is the glass or a PET non-woven material.
Baumann suggests that glass fiber or PET non-woven material are well-known material and commercially available and are currently used for the manual reinsulation of connection points (¶ 39), such material is well-known for absorbing thermomechanical stresses (¶ 41).
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 Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu by having said material is fabric or non-woven material wherein the fabric is a glass or a PET fabric and the non-woven material is the glass or a PET non-woven material, as suggested by Baumann, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
RE claim 23/19, Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Baumann has been discussed above. Sawada does not teach the woven fabric or the non-woven material is a resin-impregnated fabric or a resin-impregnated non-woven material before the insertion of one or more of the wedge and the two parallel limbs, in a half-cured state and is converted to a fully cured state by a heating process of the wind-turbine-generator stator.
Lenschow suggests that a resin-impregnated non-woven material is well-known in the art for providing insulating means where air entrapment is prevented, or at least reduced (¶ 13).
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 Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Baumann by having the non-woven material to be resin-impregnated, as suggested by Lenschow, for the same reasons as discussed above.
With regard to the limitation “before the insertion of one or more of the wedge and the two parallel limbs, in a half-cured state and is converted to a fully cured state by a heating process of the wind-turbine-generator stator”, such limitation appeared to be a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. It has been held that: "[E]ven 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).
RE claim 26/20, Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Baumann has been discussed above. Sawada does not teach between a surface formed by the two parallel limbs of the plurality of preformed coils, the wedge, and the groove sealing element, a filling material is arranged, wherein the filling material is a resin-impregnated plastic non-woven material.
Lenschow suggests that filling material such as a resin-impregnated non-woven material is well-known in the art for providing insulating means where air entrapment is prevented, or at least reduced (¶ 13).
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 Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Baumann by having between a surface formed by the two parallel limbs of the plurality of preformed coils, the wedge, and the groove sealing element, a filling material is arranged, wherein the filling material is a resin-impregnated plastic non-woven material, as suggested by Lenschow, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 28/27, Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu has been discussed above. Sawada further teaches at least one of:
a fabric or non-woven material is inserted into the at least one of the stator grooves between the two parallel limbs and a groove wall of the at least one of the stator grooves prior to insertion of the two parallel limbs, or
the material 113 is arranged between the two parallel limbs on the outer side of the two parallel limbs or on the wedge such that, after the wedge 140 has been pressed in, the fabric or the non-woven material 113 is arranged between the outer sides of the two parallel limbs and the wedge 140 (Fig.4 and ¶ 31)
Sawada does not teach said material is fabric or non-woven material
Baumann suggests that glass fiber or PET non-woven material are well-known material and commercially available and are currently used for the manual reinsulation of connection points (¶ 39), such material is well-known for absorbing thermomechanical stresses (¶ 41).
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 Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu by having said material is fabric or non-woven material, as taught by Baumann, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2018/0076679 A1).
RE claim 24/16, Sawada in view of Zhu has been discussed above. Sawada does not teach the stator grooves are sealed with a groove sealing element.
Matsumoto teaches stator grooves 20 are sealed with a groove sealing element 34 (Fig.2), thereby restricting the circumferential movement of the teeth (¶ 46).
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 Sawada in view of Lenschow and Zhu by having the stator grooves are sealed with a groove sealing element, as taught by Matsumoto, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Matsumoto as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Muller (US 6121708).
RE claim 25/24, Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Matsumoto has been discussed above. Sawada does not teach the groove sealing element is a glass-fibre reinforced plastic.
Oehler teaches suggests that plastic wedge can be made by high strength material such as glass-fiber-reinforced plastic (col.3: 10-15).
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 Sawada in view of Lenschow, Zhu and Matsumoto by having the groove sealing element is a glass-fibre reinforced plastic, as suggested by Muller, to improve strength of the sealing element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 32 are 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.
RE claim 31/27, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the stator grooves are sealed using a groove sealing element after the plurality of preformed coils have been inserted and the wedge has been pressed in, wherein, the wind-turbine-generator stator is heated or baked after the groove sealing element has been inserted into the stator grooves.
Claim 32 is allowable for its dependency on claim 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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 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 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights