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
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 02/03/2025 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 § 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) 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (JP 2002238197).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneyama teach:
A stator (abstract) comprising:
a core back (by 10) with an annular shape surrounding a central axis in a circumferential direction (Fig 2);
a plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig 2 below) extending radially outward from the core back (by 10) and arranged in the circumferential direction; and
a coil (8) wound around each of the plurality of teeth;
wherein a current of any phase of three-phase alternating current flows through the coil (para 2);
at least a portion of an extending line connecting a first coil (8) wound around a first tooth of the plurality of teeth and a second coil (8) through which a current with a same phase as a phase of the first coil flows is located in a slot between any two of the plurality of teeth except the first tooth and a second tooth adjacent to the first tooth (Fig 9, para 2); and
the extending line is located at a root of any of the two of the plurality of teeth in the slot (see annotated Fig 11 below).
Yoneyama teaches the invention as discussed above, but in different embodiments (Figs 4-9,11).
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of combining Yoneyama’s teachings to make applicant’s invention, as it would permit one to reduce the size of the machine (para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yoneyama to make applicant’s currently claimed invention.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to reduce the machine’s size (para 1 of Yoneyama) and be based on cost.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1, Yoneyama teach wherein the extending line is wired to avoid a region within a predetermined range on an outer side in the radial direction from an inner peripheral surface of the core back (see annotated Figs above).
Regarding claim 3/1, Yoneyama teach wherein a third tooth on which the second coil is located and the first tooth oppose each other in the radial direction (see annotated Figs above).
Regarding claim 4/3, Yoneyama teach the invention as discussed above, except
wherein twelve of the teeth are provided.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein twelve of the teeth are provided, as it would permit one to scale the size of the machine and power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yoneyama wherein twelve of the teeth are provided.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to scale the machine’s size and power.
Regarding claim 8/1, Yoneyama teach wherein a number of the extending lines located in the slot is two or less (see annotated Figs above).
Regarding claim 9/1, Yoneyama teach a motor comprising: the stator according to claim 1; a shaft (1, Fig 12) extending along the central axis; and a rotor (6,7) that is rotatable with respect to the stator (by 8).
Regarding claim 10/9, Yoneyama teach wherein the rotor (6,7) surrounds an outer periphery of the stator (by 8) in the radial direction.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (JP 2002238197) in view of Koshiba et al. (DE 112019004624).
Regarding claim 5/1, Yoneyama teach the invention as discussed above, except
wherein an end of the coil is located outside a center position of each of the plurality of teeth in the radial direction.
Koshiba et al. disclose wherein an end (31, Figs 11,13) of the coil is located outside a center position of each of the plurality of teeth in the radial direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yoneyama wherein an end of the coil is located outside a center position of each of the plurality of teeth in the radial direction, as Koshiba et al. disclose.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to counteract a decrease in productivity of a stator of a rotating electrical machine (“technical problem” of Koshiba et al.).
Regarding claim 6/5, Yoneyama teach wherein the coil is wound around each of the plurality of teeth in two or less layers (Fig 1 shows the coils wound in 2 layers).
Regarding claim 7/5, Yoneyama in view of Koshiba et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein a number of turns of the coil is twenty or less.
However, since Yoneyama teaches the importance of reducing thickness and conductor size affecting overall size (para 6 after “description”), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein a number of turns of the coil is twenty or less, as it would permit one to scale the size of the machine, simplify manufacturing and reduce cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yoneyama in view of Koshiba et al. wherein a number of turns of the coil is twenty or less.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to scale the machine’s size, simplify manufacturing and reduce cost.
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